Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
Flamers aren’t worthwhile even when options all have different points costs.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
There are two seemingly conflicting things - All options should be "equally" viable. All options are not equally viable. Both of those are true, and not actually contradictory.
Dysartes wrote: I'm curious - why the special vs. heavy comparisons, instead of special vs. special and heavy vs. heavy?
I assume because a 5-model Tactical Marine Squad is allowed to pick one (free) Special or Heavy Weapon. Therefore, the question becomes are those units roughly equivalent since they are both 90 points?
Probably also the 4 Shots every time vs D6, while hoping nobody thinks about why the Flamer is so rarely chosen as a special in the first place.
If the flamer is not being taken in the first place does it matter if the flamer and grav cannon are the points cost?
Because options SHOULD be worth taking.
If we're going to have different options, they should all be worthwhile, at least in their niche.
There are two seemingly conflicting things - All options should be "equally" viable. All options are not equally viable. Both of those are true, and not actually contradictory.
That's true.
But the reason they're not contradictory is that GW is doing a crap job of balancing different options. That's not a good thing.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
Against What? Neither is better or worse?
Can you name a target that the Flamer will outperform the Grav Cannon?
I was talking external balance, which might be decent.
Internal balance (for Marines at least) is gak.
Harder to hit targets with Low T, 1W and low/no armor save? ~3.5 auto hits are better than ~2.0-2.668 when the rest doesn't matter. As you just alluded to, and I pointed out elsewhere, the Flamer is just plain bad (and that's probably one of the reasons it was chosen for this example) - but "in a vaccuum" neither is better than the other.
Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
You get situational things like range, and I don't get situational things like -1 to hit Harlequinn Troupes in Hard Cover? And now that I've pointed out the theory of the tradeoff, you want to move the goalposts to outperform by a good margin?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
I'm pretty sure that's why flamers vs Grav Cannon was chosen. They're two of the most extreme ends of the options.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/22 05:29:56
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/22 05:43:30
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Plasma pistols is worth x+y more than your las pistol and only x more than your bolt pistol because bolt pistols are worth y more than las pistols, you failed. How is weapons following their fluff needless? Why shouldn't plasma guns be S3 and lasguns S7? You are crusading for intentionally gak balance with las pistols and bolt pistols that cost the same, how can you accuse me of what you're doing when I'm doing the opposite? Just play 40k chess if you don't care about fluff, a Gretchin pawn can beat a Tactical Marine pawn. You can have AoS double turns if you want to add randomness in the game.
What do you want me to accept as proof of your theory? That plasma pistols have been overcosted for a long time? But now they're an auto-include, doesn't that show that we need points?
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Just out of curiosity, what is the point of debating percentages with all the factions?
I mean, isn't it clearly obvious when a list is broken, and when it isn't?
Does anyone disagree that a S/T 10 unit with 2+ everything that has fly, fights first, fights last, and 5 wounds, costing 15ppm in a squad of 3-10 is broken?
Is anyone arguing that 50ppm for a base Tactical marine is too much?
Here are the concrete goal posts. Can't we just stay in between these?
While I dislike the free upgrades, it's not inherently unbalanced if points are still appropriate. But how do you determine if they're unbalanced?
Okay, here's an easy way. Is a Tactical Marine squad with a Flamer better or worse than a Tactical Squad with a Grav Cannon?
That's not what they asked, the internal balance sucks, that's obvious. What they asked is at what point the unit slips into unbalanced by stacking the freebies on.
For what it's worth it's not impossible to have a grav cannon and a flamer appropriately balanced against each other if you revisited the weapon profiles.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
Las pistol: pistol 3 s3 ap-, user may make 1 attitipnal close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Bolt pistol: pistol 1 s4 ap- usr may make 1 additional close combat attack with a weapon of their choosing
Plasma pistol: pistol 1 s7 ap-3
Stop crusading for a needless world where you have intentionally gak weapons nobody takes because of a 0.01% increase in the cost of your army allows you to take a better option.
It's been shown enough times, without a totla rewrite of points as a base concept in this game you cannot balance those pistols as they are anyway using points.
Plasma pistols is worth x+y more than your las pistol and only x more than your bolt pistol because bolt pistols are worth y more than las pistols, you failed. How is weapons following their fluff needless? Why shouldn't plasma guns be S3 and lasguns S7? You are crusading for intentionally gak balance with las pistols and bolt pistols that cost the same, how can you accuse me of what you're doing when I'm doing the opposite? Just play 40k chess if you don't care about fluff, a Gretchin pawn can beat a Tactical Marine pawn. You can have AoS double turns if you want to add randomness in the game.
What do you want me to accept as proof of your theory? That plasma pistols have been overcosted for a long time? But now they're an auto-include, doesn't that show that we need points?
Explain to me on a 5pt model how a laspistol is worth 0, a bolt pistol worth 1 and a plasma pistol worth 5.
Give me a justified use case for each.
I reality I expect you can't because the 1 point upgrade for a single point of strength on a sidearm is never going to be worth a 20% increase on the thing holding it, the 5 points for the plasma pistol is more than 100% increase in lethality even ignoring the overcharge, but is it worth exactly 5 times a bolt pistol? If you use that as the benchmark for what 1 point is worth, I'd say it needs to be more, but then you're more than doubling the cost of a model for a sidearm upgrade.
If the plasma is noticeably better it becomes an auto-take because its a tiny volume of points in the whole army, the bolt pistol exists to make your army exactly 2k because nobody cares enough about its change in output to waste the points and you only care about a laspistol if you have no other choice basically.
I'd also note you didn't address my example, you also refer to points as an abstract varaible because you can't yourself work out how many they should be.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/02/22 08:10:57
Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
A BS4+ las pistol into a marine expects to do half a point of damage. A BS4+ bolt pistol expects to do a mighty 0.75 points of damage. This is "bad shooting" in the context of 40k in general from any model costing more than about 3 points. You'd be better off throwing a grenade instead. How many points is expecting to do an additional 0.25 points worth of damage if you get to fire your pistol? Its certainly not a point. Or half a point. 0.1 of a point maybe? This can be safely rounded to zero and have no impact on game balance at all. What are you going to say - "He had 10 free bolt pistols so was playing 2001 points to my 2000, nerf pls"?
Plasma pistols probably should be worth something - but how much is a fair argument. 3 points maybe? But again, if someone has a free 5-6 plasma pistols in your list, is that really going to be the difference? Again, "they had 2015 points, nerf pls, I could have had an extra 2-3 termagants" seems kind of weak.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
A BS4+ las pistol into a marine expects to do half a point of damage. A BS4+ bolt pistol expects to do a mighty 0.75 points of damage. This is "bad shooting" in the context of 40k in general from any model costing more than about 3 points. You'd be better off throwing a grenade instead. How many points is expecting to do an additional 0.25 points worth of damage if you get to fire your pistol? Its certainly not a point. Or half a point. 0.1 of a point maybe? This can be safely rounded to zero and have no impact on game balance at all. What are you going to say - "He had 10 free bolt pistols so was playing 2001 points to my 2000, nerf pls"?
Plasma pistols probably should be worth something - but how much is a fair argument. 3 points maybe? But again, if someone has a free 5-6 plasma pistols in your list, is that really going to be the difference? Again, "they had 2015 points, nerf pls, I could have had an extra 2-3 termagants" seems kind of weak.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
Come up with a plasma pistol profile as bad as both bolt pistols and las pistols at the same time. Stop simping for GW's lazy game balance decisions, it's worth nothing. Profiles should be based on fluff, not on the layout of today's points based on GW's dartboard method.
A) How many places can someone swap between plasma, bolt, and las pistols? How many places is it more than once per unit?
B) Profiles should be based on neither of those things - not the least because the fluff changes based on what faction the narrator is.
Astra Militarum used to have about 5 I think, not sure how many of them have been removed, but that doesn't matter because you still have the problem of plasma pistols costing 0 for AM Sergeants with laspistols and 0 pts for SM Sergeants with bolt pistols.
You could have stopped at "You don't know". And if your example is a Guard Squad Sgt vs a SM Sergeant that can both take all of 1 per unit... I hadn't realized how powerful a plasma pistol was. What difference does it make if you have AM/SM Sgts with Plasma Pistols for 5 points or for 0 points? They're staying the same ratio - 1 pistol per 1 sgt per 1 unit, roughly x units per 2K.
So because there isn't a set canon there is no way to tell whether a Space Marine or a Gretchin is stronger or whether an Imperial Knight is tougher than a Rhino? How would you feel if someone wanted to use the Imperial Knights codex to represent their Gretchin? Who are you to tell them that Gretchin aren't tougher than Rhinos after all. You cannot really invoke balance since you don't mind if balance is bad.
Liar says what? I said balance shouldn't be based on fluff, not that I don't mind if balance is bad. When you lie about what other people have said - and lie so obviously about it - it makes you look bad. I can remember fluff that had three primarchs basically playing catch with a Land Raider destroyed by one of them in a one-punch scenario. I'll say this again - Fluff can get ridiculous and should not be the factor for game balance.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Wasn't it just established they're not disproportionately winning?
Are the other armies that got a points drop also playing at over 2,000 points? CSM got many of the same changes - are they playing at 2,100-2,200 points?
I've heard Votann were undercosted and have been getting points INCREASES. Are they playing at 1500 points?
JNAProductions wrote: Name an ACTUAL unit the Flamer outperforms the Grav Cannon against.
Not a hypothetical one-an actual one.
And bear in mind, the Flamer has to outperform it by a good margin, since the Grav Cannon has twice the range.
wyches in overwatch?
thats the whole schtick of the flamers, theyre good overwatch weapons. thing is, its so trivial to deny an overwatch that they become useless anyway (unless youre some tzeentch flamers that are clearly TOO good)
alextroy wrote: In other words, when shooting at Aeldari murder clowns within 12" of the shooter. 3.5 Hits versus 2 Hits (due to -1 to Hit), wounding on 3+ for both weapons, and both going into a 5+ Invulnerable Save.
A niche target, but there you go
That being said, it shows how bad flamers are that they aren't better even against a simple target like say Ork Boyz.
And they didn't even touch my point of Multi-Melta vs a Plasma Gun.
Explain to me how a hurricane bolter is worth 0 compared not to a bolt pistol, but to nothing. The problem is GW's lack of method to balancing their game. Let's start by saying things that are worth more than 0 should not cost zero and things that are better in every sense should cost more points. Then GW can look at ROI rates and compare the mobility and durability of units to get acceptable points ranges of each unit and adjust based on tests before and tournaments after release. This dartboard garbage they've got going on is working surprisingly well for external balance at the moment I will admit though.
Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on, at the same time if your models happen to be equipped with bolt pistols you're not losing anything significant, it's just 1 pt/model and you are getting something worth more than 0. This is preferable because there is at least some reason to get the bolt pistol, if they cost the same there is zero reason to get the laspistol, ergo internal balance is improved if bolt pistols cost more than 0 and plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols.
5 is a little high for a plasma pistol, but I am not an expert, that's why I use values abstract values which I know you can't argue against. Someone who has points leftover will prefer the plasma pistol at 5 pts to the bolt pistol which is overcosted at 1 pt, but at least you're saving 4 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol instead of saving 0 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol, ergo, balance is better.
15 pts isn't an external balance problem, it's an internal balance problem. Tesla Immortals being 2 pts/model overcosted didn't hurt anyone other than Necron players. Bolt pistols do not need utility to make them on-par with plasma pistols, that's hogwash. Do Rhinos need utility to make them on-par with Land Raiders?
Apple fox wrote: If the weapons are so functionally similar in end result, depending entirely on opportunity.
Then I think players should be choosing when that is shown. When putting minis on the table is the only place really I feel.
Which weapon do you think is going to end up on more miniatures?
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/02/22 15:46:52
vict0988 wrote: Explain to me how a hurricane bolter is worth 0 compared not to a bolt pistol, but to nothing.
Because the only place you see a Hurricane Bolter or Nothing is on the Stormraven Gunship and making them free makes the Stormraven Gunship more viable.
Edit to Add: Because they already dropped the thing 50 points, and they didn't want to drop it another 30, then have people use the thing without the Hurricane Bolters thus having it fit in a smaller window of some lists?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/02/22 16:28:36
vict0988 wrote: Upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol is worth more than 0, if you're unwilling to set the smallest non-zero points value in 40k below 1 then 1 is the best value that can be used for upgrading a laspistol to a bolt pistol and it will only be worth it in cases where you have nothing else to spend your point on
So you might say... they're worthless. Because the only justification you can have for spending that point is "nothing else to spend them on".
at the same time if your models happen to be equipped with bolt pistols you're not losing anything significant, it's just 1 pt/model and you are getting something worth more than 0. This is preferable because there is at least some reason to get the bolt pistol
You just said there wasn't a reason outside of wasting points.
if they cost the same there is zero reason to get the laspistol, ergo internal balance is improved if bolt pistols cost more than 0 and plasma pistols cost more than bolt pistols.
If you never see bolt pistols because they're a point wasting mechanic, by your own admission, then internal balance isn't actually any better.
5 is a little high for a plasma pistol, but I am not an expert, that's why I use values abstract values which I know you can't argue against.
I can, because you're by your own earlier admission unable to point a bolt pistol in the game appropriately compared to a laspistol. They have to be abstract because it's not possible.
Someone who has points leftover will prefer the plasma pistol at 5 pts to the bolt pistol which is overcosted at 1 pt, but at least you're saving 4 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol instead of saving 0 pts by taking the bolt pistol instead of the plasma pistol, ergo, balance is better.
But again your whole argument hinges on spending unwanted points. Why would you ever take a bolt pistol - you wouldn't by your own admission. Instead either the plasma pistol is really good and worth spending 5pts on, or it isn't and you just take the free one. I won't argue a plasma pistol is better than a laspistol but I will argue you cannot appropriately point it, which you confirm.
15 pts isn't an external balance problem, it's an internal balance problem. Tesla Immortals being 2 pts/model overcosted didn't hurt anyone other than Necron players.
What are you on about? what about 15 points? if an army is 15 points cheaper/more expensive than it should be than it's an external and internal issue if it's not mitigatable via other options, although I doubt anyone would notice that 0.75% of an army. As for tesla, yes that's an internal balance issue exclusively as it has peers to compete with without impact the armies overall performance.
Bolt pistols do not need utility to make them on-par with plasma pistols, that's hogwash.
They do if they're the same price, but for whatever reason you're stuck on everything must be on a raw scale of output with no imagination to make the gap up.
Do Rhinos need utility to make them on-par with Land Raiders?
Is a land raider an optional upgrade to the Rhino. This is an instance where there are large quantifiable changes between 2 units that justify the difference in price. Conversely, the Land raider *does* offer utility to validate the increased price.
Tyel wrote: Its a reasonable argument to make that if bolt pistols=las pistols you'd always take bolt pistols because they are better. And you might dislike this because you think laspistols are cool or something idk.
Its however equally reasonable to say that *in the actual game* this would have essentially zero consequences because the bolt pistol isn't "enough better" to be worth anything.
If the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so functionally irrelevant on the tabletop that they might as well be the same cost, do they really need to be different statlines? I mean, if they're both so crap that there's no point giving a cost to the unambiguously better option, then why have different profiles? Represent either as 'officer's sidearm', use the statline for a laspistol (with fluff that Guard-sized bolt pistols are a smaller caliber than Astartes pistols and thus S3), and call it a day. Conversely, if a bolt pistol is so distinct from a laspistol that they need to have different stats, then that's a distinction important enough to warrant costing it appropriately.
Either way, it seems contradictory to say that the exact type of sidearm an officer is carrying is important enough to warrant letting you pick which one he gets... but then also so unimportant that that choice shouldn't be worth anything, even when one option is clearly better.
My two cents is that the distinction between a laspistol and a bolt pistol mattered a lot more when the latter ignored Guard armor, an officer could credibly pop a Marine with either every once in a while, and the game scale was small enough that how you kitted out your lieutenant made a difference. 40K's way beyond that, but it still preserves these legacy options that don't really matter anymore. When you're running into the case where an upgrade is so miniscule that it's difficult to set a cost, then maybe it's time to take a long and hard look at which options are actually relevant and which ought to be either streamlined out or re-worked to matter again.
If you don't care about fluff I don't know why you're mentioning laspistols since they're not in the SM codex and if we don't care about fluff we should all just move over to the most popular faction so GW can balance that to the best of their ability.
What a weird tangent to go off on, what has space marines relative popularity of divorcing the fluff got to do with anything? Catbarf is absolutely correct that there's 0 harm in having a guardsman sidearm profile for both and then only worry about the plasma.
Dudeface wrote: The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
I don't know if this is true. The bad options can simply serve as a baseline to show how much better the good options are and that is a fine baseline of utility for something that has to exist for fluff reasons.
The issue with the free stuff and points drops is if it compounds to the point where an army of 2k points really should be 2100-2200 in the context of wider 40k, and this is why its disproportionately winning.
Wasn't it just established they're not disproportionately winning?
Are the other armies that got a points drop also playing at over 2,000 points? CSM got many of the same changes - are they playing at 2,100-2,200 points?
I've heard Votann were undercosted and have been getting points INCREASES. Are they playing at 1500 points?
yes it’s been established there’s no evidence marines are OP now, but internet people can rarely admit they’re wrong, and just double down on their arguments
Dudeface wrote: The other side of that being the "lesser" options need some utility or other virtues to make them something other than "the worst one", I'm not against things being pointed as long as it's worthwhile doing so. If you can balance a laspistol vs a bolt pistol to parity at the same cost/free then a plasma pistol being more points but outright better is ok. Otherwise the simple answer is to consolidate the profiles into "sidearm" and "better sidearm" as needed.
I don't know if this is true. The bad options can simply serve as a baseline to show how much better the good options are and that is a fine baseline of utility for something that has to exist for fluff reasons.
Sometimes, but do we need multiple bad options? To lean on the guard officer pistol debacle, the bolt pistol isn't really adding much of anything to justify its existence other than "fluff says it should". But like I pointed out before you can actually drag the laspistol up by giving it extra utility or tweaking it's profile to give a comparison.
EviscerationPlague often points at the gravcannon as another weapon that sits in that slot where it's either either:
- default best and overlaps most other weapons roles
- utterly pointless and might as well not exist
- mid-range in power but simply shows up the other weapons as not needing to be there
Simple answer is get rid of the grav cannon, but if people insist on continuing everything that ever did or will exist as its own profile, then you will never balance them in their current iterations.
Calculating WS and BS of a model into its base point cost is a trap in practice.
It is sufficient to take it into consideration when you come up with points for the weapon options.
Any given weapon has a cost of X as the combination of all of its values like range, type, strength and so on. X is the value if it would hit 6/6 times.
A model with BS 2+ pays 5/6 of the cost.
A model with BS 3+ pays 4/6 of the cost and so on.
I don't think that it is possible to stat the BS of a model into its base cost if you give it a selection from literally nothing to Thunder hammer. At least I couldn't come up with one.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/02/22 18:29:42
Designer's Note: Hardened Veterans can be represented by any Imperial Guard models, but we've really included them to allow players to practise their skills at making a really unique and individual unit. Because of this we won't be making models to represent many of the options allowed to a Veteran squad - it's up to you to convert the models. (Imperial Guard, 3rd Edition)
