Prediction Time

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.

**Canadian 5th**

Dudeface wrote:
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.

There's no real utility gained in doing such as neither option will ever be worth much regardless. I'd rather focus the same effort on abilities that players actually use.

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.

The Grav Cannon could be space for more unique rules having a place. Tune it to do less damage than Plasma but do something like reduce a unit's movement or disrupt charges when it scores a hit in overwatch, or both if one or the other alone is too weak.

**VladimirHerzog**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
GW should just make a mathematical formula to figure out the points value of their units/weapons

A boltgun on a BS2+ unit whould be worth more points than a boltgun on a BS4+ unit.

It is, because the unit using the weapon already paid for the BS2+. It doesn't need to really pay more for the Bolter.

fair enough, but the main takeaway from my comment really is that points should be determined mathematically

**JNAProductions**

I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.

**VladimirHerzog**

JNAProductions wrote:
I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.

Agreed, which is why it requires manual tweaking (of both the formulas itself AND the result on some units)

**a_typical_hero**

Since I did something similar for my Homebrew, if anybody is interested how it could look like:
Points calculator

The point values make sense with a less lethal approach to the game (cue 3rd edition).

**JNAProductions**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
JNAProductions wrote:
I do think that a formula would be helpful, as a starting point.
I don't think you can, at least with currently available maths and sciences, make a formula that can give you a good end point. You're gonna have to playtest and tweak it.

Agreed, which is why it requires manual tweaking (of both the formulas itself AND the result on some units)

Honestly, I think it'd be better to just get good playtesting.
A formula might be useful when complete, but achieving that is... Not an easy task, to say the least.
If you're able to get to a good spot on balance, via playtesting, you can then reverse engineer a formula much more easily than trying it from scratch.

Basically, in theory a formula is perfect, but in practice playtesting and other existing techniques are likely to be more effective for now.

**johnpjones1775**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
GW should just make a mathematical formula to figure out the points value of their units/weapons

A boltgun on a BS2+ unit whould be worth more points than a boltgun on a BS4+ unit.

make the math as complex as it needs to be, taking into account, range,type,ap, damage AND the platform its on (toughness, speed, skill).

Strip stratagems so there is only generic ones (1-2 per phase) and mmmaybe one on some specific characters only.

Make subfactions/relics/warlord traits cost something (again, with variations depending on the unit its on).

Bundle all of that on a solid, free, listbuilding application so it's not complicated for people to calculate it.

Then you can do manual refinement if something is overbearing, and update it seamlessly in the app.

Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.

**VladimirHerzog**

johnpjones1775 wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
GW should just make a mathematical formula to figure out the points value of their units/weapons

A boltgun on a BS2+ unit whould be worth more points than a boltgun on a BS4+ unit.

make the math as complex as it needs to be, taking into account, range,type,ap, damage AND the platform its on (toughness, speed, skill).

Strip stratagems so there is only generic ones (1-2 per phase) and mmmaybe one on some specific characters only.

Make subfactions/relics/warlord traits cost something (again, with variations depending on the unit its on).

Bundle all of that on a solid, free, listbuilding application so it's not complicated for people to calculate it.

Then you can do manual refinement if something is overbearing, and update it seamlessly in the app.

Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.

yeah, which is part of the calculation, i didnt explain myself properly.

Marine statblock with BS2 + boltgun = 100pts
Marine statblock with BS6 + boltgun = 10pts

but then expand it to every weapon/combinations

Marine statblock with BS2 + Melta= 200pts, Melta is costed at 100pts
Marine statblock with BS6 + Melta = 15pts, Melta is costed at 5pts

(actual values are obviously not what i'd recommend, just to show what i mean)

**Canadian 5th**

a_typical_hero wrote:
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.

How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.

**VladimirHerzog**

Canadian 5th wrote:
a_typical_hero wrote:
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.

How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.

you should still pay for the sword, and evaluate during listbuilding if you value it, yeah it will lead to "trap-option" but a dedicated shooty unit should not randomly want to bring close combat weapons

**a_typical_hero**

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Why would a bolter cost more a BS2+ than on a BS4+? The weapon should cost the same across the board because you’re already paying a premium on the 2+ model compared to the 4+ model.

It costs more because the boltgun hits more often. That's why in practice it needs to be the other way around. You don't pay for the BS of a model when looking at the model cost.

How much is BS2+ worth on any model? You can't tell because it depends on the weapons available. 2+ on a model that can only take a laspistol is relatively worth nothing compared to a model that can take a lascannon. I elaborated on it a few posts prior.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:
How does this work with, for example, giving a power sword to the Sergeant leading a Devastator squad? It's technically a power boost and he does have the same WS as a Sergeant leading another unit but the impact of the weapon is much reduced due to the unit's role.

Currently, I make no exception for it. I understand that you could make an argument for it because a ranged unit - in theory - should engage less often in melee combat. That is were finetuning would come in afterwards, after establishing a baseline.

**Canadian 5th**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
you should still pay for the sword, and evaluate during listbuilding if you value it, yeah it will lead to "trap-option" but a dedicated shooty unit should not randomly want to bring close combat weapons

There is a points value where it's a good option to help them get unstuck from a chaff unit tying them up but the full price likely isn't it.

Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?

**a_typical_hero**

In my calculator given above, a basic Intercessor comes out at 40 points with grenades, bolt rifle and TSKNF. (Some special calculation methods apply, f.e. grenades costing 1p each)

A power sword is 4 points at WS3+. (Melee weapons receive a bit of an indirect discount, as they don't have range and attacks taken into their calculation. A nod to the fact that melee units usually have a harder time applying their weaponry than shooty units)

Games are played at a usual size of 2500-3500 points. Let's just say until now, it never came up as a problem to fit some "unoptimised" wargear on your units. I do see your point, though.

**VladimirHerzog**

Canadian 5th wrote:

Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?

depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.

4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.

can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.

**catbarf**

vict0988 wrote:
catbarf wrote:
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.

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I care about fluff; but I don't believe that every last little bit of fluff needs to be modeled in the rules. There's a point where these distinctions stop being relevant to the tabletop, and if the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so miniscule that it's not even worth a single point, then it's probably not worth bothering with in tabletop rules.

How you get 'we should all just use the SM rules and counts-as' from that, I'm at a loss.

**Canadian 5th**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:

Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?

depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.

4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.

can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.

Then the cost they pay for those capabilities will be too costly (if you've balanced around say devastators) or two cheap (if you've balanced around BT neophytes). You cannot make a formula work if it doesn't also account for the role of a unit.

**Daedalus81**

edit : late to the party

**VladimirHerzog**

Canadian 5th wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:

Also, where does this leave a base unit of Marines? Are they a shooty unit or a choppy unit? Do we balance around them or around the impact a weapon has in a more dedicated role?

depends on how you build them up, do you want them standing back with a lascannon and taking pot shots at tanks or do you want them moving up the board with a flamer to kill small infantry.

4 naked marines + lascannon are clearly a shooty unit
Sergeant with power sword + 3 bolter dudes + flamethrower becomes a hybrid unit on which a melee weapon makes more sense.

can the lascannon wielding squad still end up in CC , yes but you as a player need to gauge if you really want to pay those xpts to maybe get them out of combat or not.

Then the cost they pay for those capabilities will be too costly (if you've balanced around say devastators) or two cheap (if you've balanced around BT neophytes). You cannot make a formula work if it doesn't also account for the role of a unit.

The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...

If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.

**Daedalus81**

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.

Flamers had a niche when unlimited overwatch was a thing. CSM make them slightly more palatable with their special rule, but that rule should have been for all flamers really.

**Canadian 5th**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...

If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte.

That's untrue.

A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24". A lascannon is less valuable on a unit that wants to hide in cover to hold an objective than it is on a unit that wants to move and hunt tanks. Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.

You want a simple solution but what you want doesn't exist and would make the game worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
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.

Flamers had a niche when unlimited overwatch was a thing. CSM make them slightly more palatable with their special rule, but that rule should have been for all flamers really.

Flamers had a niche when they could cook 20+ models at once. Templates make flamers and blasts far more attractive than they are currently.

**Daedalus81**

Well that was pretty rare and involved a lot of 4+ rolls.

Another problem comes up when you have squads than can take all flamers so making them too good pushes it past sensibility.

No one would complain about a D6+4 flamer until you have 10 of them in a unit.

**vict0988**

Dudeface wrote:
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.

No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.

catbarf wrote:
vict0988 wrote:
catbarf wrote:
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.

I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I care about fluff; but I don't believe that every last little bit of fluff needs to be modeled in the rules. There's a point where these distinctions stop being relevant to the tabletop, and if the difference between a laspistol and a bolt pistol is so miniscule that it's not even worth a single point, then it's probably not worth bothering with in tabletop rules.

How you get 'we should all just use the SM rules and counts-as' from that, I'm at a loss.

I thought it was pretty clear I was just being hostile because we have a difference of opinion. Thank you for not immediately jumping to that conclusion, I hope you have a good day.

Breton wrote:
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?

Would you agree that there is a non-zero points cost for a hurricane bolter on a Stormraven Gunship that would make the hurricane bolter an auto-include on a Stormraven? If you agree then you'd have to agree that even if GW wanted to make Stormraven Gunships good and make hurricane bolters an auto-include that cost would not have to be zero. Somewhere between 30 and whatever the highest non-zero points value you'd agree to would make the hurricane bolter an auto-include you'd find a fair cost where most people would take the hurricane bolter because it'd be aggressively costed but at the same time it wouldn't be completely half-brained to include a Stormraven Gunship in your list without taking a hurricane bolter because you built yours without one 2 editions ago.

**Dudeface**

vict0988 wrote:
Dudeface wrote:
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.

No, their value is very clearly non zero, I said that many times, that's the opposite of worthless. Overcosted does not mean worthless. What's worthless is a strictly worse weapon that isn't cheaper.

Let me pluck that bit out for you again:

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

I'll leave it there, but if you only take something with the explicit purpose of having nothing else to spend points on and it's only value to you is to make your list add up to 2k exactly, it has no real worth and might as well be free.

**Canadian 5th**

Daedalus81 wrote:
Well that was pretty rare and involved a lot of 4+ rolls.

Another problem comes up when you have squads than can take all flamers so making them too good pushes it past sensibility.

No one would complain about a D6+4 flamer until you have 10 of them in a unit.

It made tank shock and flamer combinations somewhat viable and gave units like Burna Boyz actual utility. It also makes Hellhounds and Flamer Rhinos interesting choices against hordes.

**VladimirHerzog**

Canadian 5th wrote:

A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24".

Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them

Canadian 5th wrote:

A lascannon is less valuable on a unit that wants to hide in cover to hold an objective than it is on a unit that wants to move and hunt tanks.

in most games i play, lascannon dudes stay still in a building all game..

Canadian 5th wrote:

Your system will lead to people taking nothing but naked tactical squads again because they can't use weapons that are priced to prevent another unit from abusing them.

how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???

**EviscerationPlague**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:

A meltagun on a unit that moves 4" per turn is less valuable than one on a unit that can move 24".

Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them

Not really. It's why things like Devastators and Purgation squads were awful in 3rd to 4th. They made you pay more for the weapon itself just because you're able to take more in that squad, while the rules writers forgot about the opportunity cost that came with the old school FOC to begin with.

**Canadian 5th**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them

Do longer range guns cost more or less on faster units? Or are guns just supposed to be [gun points] x [BS Ratio] and not priced on a by unit basis?

in most games i play, lascannon dudes stay still in a building all game..

That's a pretty static and terrible game that likely doesn't use enough LoS-blocking terrain.

how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???

"The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...

If you think paying 5pts for a powersword on a devastator unit is not worth it, don't pick the weapon, it doesn't change the fact that the sword will kill 4 guardsmen (random number to make a point), regardless of if its on a devastator or an neophyte."

You just said you won't price weapons based on the unit that carries them, only by their raw numbers.

**Tyel**

catbarf wrote:
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.

I broadly agree (with the caveat that I'm not sure bolt pistols on say guard sergeants ever made a meaningful difference.)

Ultimately you have the problem that some people want a fluff-based rule system, and others want one that works and makes vague sense as a game.

I think this is why we saw so much crying from certain quarters on say Fleshborers going to S5 AP-1. "Oh its going to be OP" - "oh no wait, at 7 points a model this is about half as good into Marines as say a Guardian". "But but but but its not fair that Fleshborers have such stats. My fluff. My immersion. They should be S3 AP- and sure, if this means Termagants should be about 2-3 points each as a result compared with modern 40k, then so be it. The game will just have to somehow cope Tyranid players bringing 300 Termagants plus most of the rest of their regular army because its meant to be a simulation...."

**VladimirHerzog**

Canadian 5th wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
Thats why i said that all the stats of a unit should be taken into account when pricing them

Do longer range guns cost more or less on faster units? Or are guns just supposed to be [gun points] x [BS Ratio] and not priced on a by unit basis?

get the max threat range of the gun.... Mv + Range

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Canadian 5th wrote:

how would weapons be priced for another unit when i specifically said to price them on a unit per unit basis???

"The role doesn't matter... the raw numbers do...

Look man, i'm done arguing for this when you're intentionally being dense.

The role truly doesnt matter, you use only the stats of the unit. If the unit is shooty yet the sargeant somehow gets 10 attacks with a thunderhammer, well he should still pay full price even if its not a melee unit and realistically won't get to use it.

Canadian 5th wrote:

You just said you won't price weapons based on the unit that carries them, only by their raw numbers.

yeah, the raw stat of the unit carrying them ffs -.-

**Canadian 5th**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
get the max threat range of the gun.... Mv + Range

Do units that take heavy weapons get a discount because they get negatives to hit if they move?

Look man, i'm done arguing for this when you're intentionally being dense.

The role truly doesnt matter, you use only the stats of the unit. If the unit is shooty yet the sargeant somehow gets 10 attacks with a thunderhammer, well he should still pay full price even if its not a melee unit and realistically won't get to use it.

Do units that hold objectives get a higher cost for weapons? Do deep striking units pay more for assault weapons and less for heavy weapons?

yeah, the raw stat of the unit carrying them ffs -.-

Are special rules raw stats? How do you factor in buffing auras and stratagems? How about litanies and psychic powers that aren't a sure thing to go off each turn?