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.
2023/03/27 23:04:05
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--...
Why? Anything that is better than the default wargear should cost more. A Guard Officer with a power sword is better than one with a chainsword. A Bolt Pistol is better than a Laspistol. The cost should reflect this increased power, even if this "power" is minimal in the context of the unit or army. If they are free, then why wouldn't you always take the best free options for everything?
Upgrades should never be free. And putting a flat cost on upgrades (ie. all special weapons in a Guard Squad cost +X points, all Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad cost +Y points) doesn't take into account the inherent differences between weapons, the roles they play, and how effective the weapons are at their roles. Some weapons are straight upgrades over others, some are side-grades, some do similar things but in a vastly different fashion.
By making weapons have the same cost you're essentially saying that all weapons are equally good at whatever they're meant to do. And they should never be free.
alextroy wrote: When it comes down to it, I have no faith in the GW Design Teams ability to balance the point values of too many variables. Every variable we can remove from the balancing equation should provide us with a better balanced game. I am willing to give up some lore accuracy on rarer, better equipment in pursuit of a better balanced and more lore accurate looking army on the battlefield.
In short, I would rather see 6 Tactical Squads with a mix of non-additional cost special weapons because they are all equally valid power-wise across different function then see 6 Tactical Squads with no upgrades because "why spend 5 points upgrading a 18 point marine, the upgrades aren't worth the points anyway"?
You are welcome to disagree, but that doesn't mean it will result in a unbalanced, dumpster fire of a game.
Great, so you have no faith in GWs ability to balance, but then propose they're going to balance it by shifting weapon stats around. Their skill at balancing will suddenly improve? The assumptions you make here are like tantamount to utopian dellusion. "If we do this one thing everything will be solved!"
But also . . . If points were no issue I'd probably spam certain weapons even harder. Points have absolutely driven me to more army diversity in my builds throughout the editions. Because of the varying costs, I had to make compromises and take other gear than just the best or most optimal for intended deployment.
Wow. Couldn't even make it through the entire sentence before trying to score a point. Look at the red text above. Note the bold part you completely ignored. I want GW to have less to think about when balancing the points and I think balancing the weapons once allows them to then not think about that issue when balancing the units. If 8 out of 10 options don't need to cost points because they are even, that is 8 things you don't need to consider. Do that over the few thousand units in the game and they just might be less likely to make bad cost balance mistakes in the future.
And don't even bring up the red herrings of balancing something against nothing or a special weapon against a basic weapon. We all know that a question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
Pffft! It's a perfectly valid point for two reasons.
1: Part of seeing loadout diversity on the table is including both "haves" and "have nots".
2: The second is that it removes the option of making those compromises in favor of other options elsewhere.
They are false questions because:
1. Any item that is an additional item (as opposed to a swap) must either cost points or should become not optional. Simple as that. If a Leman Russ has optional sponsons, they must have a cost. Otherwise, they are not really optional and should be an assumed part of the unit composition.
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
2023/03/27 23:28:27
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!
I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.
Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.
I think part of the issue is that you seem to be conflating wanting a flat cost to be no cost.
Uhhhh. . . Nope! I don't see flat cost as no cost. I see it as
1: A reduction in available design space, since you remove the option to have variable-value gear.
"Free" is a variable-value, FYI.
A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--and they don't. They do pay for a Power Fist or Plasma Pistol though.
Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?
2: A reduction in solo-engagement with the hobby, because some of us really enjoy the nitty-gritty of listbuilding.
Weapons actually being balanced across their profiles would shift that "nitty-gritty" from simple number-crunching to actual, meaningful decisions. I would think that people wanting the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" would want factors other than simple number-crunching to be the reason listbuilding becomes challenging, right?
Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.
Part of why I liked the Cadian and Death Korps squads being able to double up on weapons is that it allowed for a meaningful choice, alongside of letting me throw a bit more customization to the unit in lieu of that HWT.
A double plasma squad, with medical pouches scattered across the gear of the other squad members for Cadians? A double-flamer squad, with everyone modeled with gas-masks and running poses? Krieg with sharpshooters modeled to look more like a "security team" for a rear echelon?
That's where my engagement comes from. Truly making a force mine. I don't give one flipping feth about the "nitty-gritty of listbuilding" when people pretend that there is some kind of secret knowledge in it. By and large it comes down to either "I like the look of item X/Y/Z" or "Numbercrunchers showed that A/B/C is the best, so I take that".
That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?
3: A reduction in options, because you can't take a minimal cost unit for a backfield task vs. a tooled out one for a "main line" unit. You save no "value" by taking a "min" squad.
You're speaking to a Guard player. I can't take a "min squad" anyways, unless I run Scions, Ogryn, Rough Riders, or various vehicles. All of my squads are locked at 5 or 10 models.
The most I could do prior to the free wargear was simply not take upgrades, which still locked me in at 9 Lasguns and a Laspistol...in which case I should have just taken Conscripts and gotten 11 more Lasguns for around the same price.
The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".
You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.
The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.
Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....
Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.
Kanluwen wrote: A Guard Officer should not be paying for a Power Sword, Chainsword, Bolt Pistol, or Laspistol--...
Why? Anything that is better than the default wargear should cost more. A Guard Officer with a power sword is better than one with a chainsword. A Bolt Pistol is better than a Laspistol. The cost should reflect this increased power, even if this "power" is minimal in the context of the unit or army. If they are free, then why wouldn't you always take the best free options for everything?
Upgrades should never be free. And putting a flat cost on upgrades (ie. all special weapons in a Guard Squad cost +X points, all Heavy Weapons in a Tactical Squad cost +Y points) doesn't take into account the inherent differences between weapons, the roles they play, and how effective the weapons are at their roles. Some weapons are straight upgrades over others, some are side-grades, some do similar things but in a vastly different fashion.
By making weapons have the same cost you're essentially saying that all weapons are equally good at whatever they're meant to do. And they should never be free.
The current Guard Codex is a travesty.
Exactly!
2023/03/27 23:33:39
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!
I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/28 00:07:04
Insectum7 wrote: Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.
Correct. And yet you're the one who has repeatedly pretended that it's the "no points" element that makes those weapons being ignored.
Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?
Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.
The simple existence of cookie-cutter netlists begs to differ.
That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?
They really don't though. Points are why we keep having options stripped away.
The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".
Actually the choice was "do I waste points upgrading speed bumps or do I use the more efficient method of spamming the same bodies".
]Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.
No actually, you can't.
Because there's this magical thing called MATHHAMMER that is a cancerous blight across this game. Unless you want to play pretend and insinuate that there is not concerted calls about items being "trash" the minute leaks hit with their rules?
2023/03/27 23:37:13
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
alextroy wrote: Wow. Couldn't even make it through the entire sentence before trying to score a point. Look at the red text above. Note the bold part you completely ignored. I want GW to have less to think about when balancing the points and I think balancing the weapons once allows them to then not think about that issue when balancing the units. If 8 out of 10 options don't need to cost points because they are even, that is 8 things you don't need to consider. Do that over the few thousand units in the game and they just might be less likely to make bad cost balance mistakes in the future.
All you've done is shift the point of balance from points to stats, while removing the tool which is easiest for GW to adjust (points). I'll keep my "scored point"!
Insectum7 wrote: Then you're the one pretending? The idea of weapons being ignored is your talking point.
Correct. And yet you're the one who has repeatedly pretended that it's the "no points" element that makes those weapons being ignored.
Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?
Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
Points for different gear does not exclude challenging decision making.
The simple existence of cookie-cutter netlists begs to differ.
That's nice that you engage that way. Do you understand that other people might engage differently? Do you understand that points allow for both kinds of engagement?
They really don't though. Points are why we keep having options stripped away.
The "min" here is "minimal expenditure". You could buy the bodies with basic gear, and choose to spend more points to give them better gear. The "not take upgrades".
Actually the choice was "do I waste points upgrading speed bumps or do I use the more efficient method of spamming the same bodies".
]Then GW should make each of those upgrade options more viable within the framework of the game. Not simply remove point costs. You can achieve weapon option viability without throwing points under the bus. You can still have "decent AT weapon" for one price, and "super AT weapon" for a different, higher price, and have both be viable options.
No actually, you can't.
Because there's this magical thing called MATHHAMMER that is a cancerous blight across this game. Unless you want to play pretend and insinuate that there is not concerted calls about items being "trash" the minute leaks hit with their rules?
This entire post is projection. "Everybody plays like this, no exceptions!"
Why should they not pay for a Power Sword if it is an upgrade?
Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
Well yeah. Why else did you buy it? We can always just remove that actual option and just count all Commander weapons as Chainswords in terms of stats if that's what you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/28 00:09:36
2023/03/28 00:11:30
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
It causes more damage than his default weapon. It is better than his default weapon. It is not a side-grade. It is an upgrade.
A Plasma Pistol does more than a Laspistol, but also might just kill the guy using it, so it might not do anything, yet you're apparently fine with that costing more. This is no different.
How do you not get this concept?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2023/03/28 00:12:47
Kanluwen wrote: Explain how it's an upgrade. What does throwing a Power Sword on an officer realistically do? Make it so he might hurt someone in CC?
It causes more damage than his default weapon. It is better than his default weapon. It is not a side-grade. It is an upgrade.
A Plasma Pistol does more than a Laspistol, but also might just kill the guy using it, so it might not do anything, yet you're apparently fine with that costing more. This is no different.
How do you not get this concept?
Actually, Plasma Pistol won't kill the user by default, so even the D1 profile is still a straight upgrade.
2023/03/28 00:57:25
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
My point was that a plasma pistol might only not do nothing, but might kill the user, putting paid to Kan's attempt at an argument where he said "so he might hurt something".
He doesn't seem to understand that nothing is a sure thing in a game like this, and that you are often paying points for the potential of doing something. A Guard Officer with a power sword has the potential to do more with it than the same officer with a Chainsword, thus, its cost should be reflected appropriately.
If I pay points to upgrade my Russ so it has sponsons, but make the conscious choice to never use them during the game, then that doesn't mean that they should have been free as they didn't do anything.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/28 00:58:16
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!
I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.
2023/03/28 04:33:18
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Kanluwen wrote: It's no less bizarre than pretending that certain options aren't(I assume you meant) outright ignored in favor of others, no matter the points costs.
According to who? The mighty Kanluwen and his projectionist claims? Ha!
I meant "are". Because certain options are ignored in favor of others or outright just not opted to upgrade.
You just shoot yourself in the foot even harder than you project others do by taking Flamers instead of Plasma. At least folks who take Flamers might save on points and get a little extra kick against hordes.
The problem with this argument is that the actual lists written back when Guard paid points for upgrades shows this wasn't the case.
Plasma was basically an ever-present item in the lists. Usually with autocannons in the same squad. Then there were the trusty alternates of Grenade Launchers and Mortars in the same squad, letting you ignore LOS while camping on an objective out of LOS and chip away hoping for a lucky wound....
Just because points can increase internal balance doesn't mean they always will. Like you could have a grenade launcher cost more than a plasma gun despite the grenade launcher being worth less. But you'll always end up with lots of options that have the best rules on their individual datasheet by a good enough margin that people consider them auto-include unless they have an appropriate points cost or a too high points cost. Options being given too high points costs is still better than everything being free because the alternative is having the "option" of keeping a strictly worse lasgun instead of a plasma gun and the hoops you'd have to jump through to balance the options without points is just silly when we already have points.
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!
I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.
They're called fast-food restaurants and many countries don't have free sides like bread or free water. You still haven't proven that GW has an easier time balancing simpler systems than more complicated ones. External balance is as good as it's been possibly forever, the game is a bloated mess and there is no unified points balancing design, it's all just a bungled mess and somehow it works out to pretty fair win rates and most factions getting one or more top 4s at a GT. If GW cannot balance the points on a datasheet then how are they going to balance the stats? Look at the Necrons codex when it came out, Triarch Praetorians and Immortals switched around which weapon option was the superior one, both only have one option that works on the entire unit, both failed to be balanced, one swap was free, the other cost points. GW just got it wrong which one should have cost points and which one should have been free.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2023/03/28 04:45:43
2023/03/28 05:18:09
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!
I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.
Are fast food restaurants not restaurants?
2023/03/28 05:37:54
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
2. False choice. If something isn't optional, you don't have to worry about not taking it to allow you the option to take something else. If you go to a restaurant and purchase a meal, you aren't being penalized because the meal includes two sides. You can choose not to eat them, but it doing so doesn't allow you to purchase a dessert.
Bruh. I can go to a fast Carls Jr. right now and buy a Combo Meal (Sandwich, fries and soda) or just buy the sandwich and have money left over for dessert. Ta daaa!
I can even choose to spend an extra dollar on cheese for the sandwich, and then buy a less expensive dessert because of it!
Nice job intentionally reading the analogy. I said a restaurant, not some fast food joint. If you go to Olive Garden and purchase a spaghetti with meat sauce, you don't save any money by forgoing the salad and breadsticks.
It doesn't matter. It's like you don't understand how numbers work.
I think the issue being lost here is that having the differentiated weapon profiles as they are now allows more parity than before. Whereas a lot of the talk is very much "things are as they as they are and must always be".
Having to choose between a horde or meq or anti-armour weapon without the latter being the best and by default the most expensive is possible now because its not based off a static profile for all 3. Whether you like that or not is subjective but there's a reason they're pulling the options onto the unit with stats associated, just like sigmar where common options are usually straight swaps.
For reference yes, a plasma pistol is currently a straight up upgrade worth points. I've debated the fact that imo a guard officers bolt pistol can't be reasonably priced atm enough times to not be bothered again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/28 06:27:24
2023/03/28 06:54:47
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
The only thing that could convince me to go back would be a radical switch to much more interesting gameplay (non-obvious, impactful decisions, complex problems requiring creative solutions) and much less upkeep and resolution where players are bored, passive observers (watching all those dice being rolled for hours on end).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2023/03/28 06:54:57
2023/03/28 07:08:59
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Dudeface wrote: I think the issue being lost here is that having the differentiated weapon profiles as they are now allows more parity than before. Whereas a lot of the talk is very much "things are as they as they are and must always be".
Having to choose between a horde or meq or anti-armour weapon without the latter being the best and by default the most expensive is possible now because its not based off a static profile for all 3. Whether you like that or not is subjective but there's a reason they're pulling the options onto the unit with stats associated, just like sigmar where common options are usually straight swaps.
For reference yes, a plasma pistol is currently a straight up upgrade worth points. I've debated the fact that imo a guard officers bolt pistol can't be reasonably priced atm enough times to not be bothered again.
Indeed. A bolt pistol and laspistol are currently so close in performance that even a single point difference is too much. Of course, it doesn't help that right now small arms aren't great anyways and a single small arms shot isn't going to have any sort of impact. So the best approach is to allow both and just make them both have the same cost (free) because no one is willing to pay even a single point for them.
With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option. Perhaps points could be used to balance them theoretically but with the skill demonstrated by GW that's not something I would ever expect to see. That incidentally also is why I'm leaning more and more towards power level because it admits that such fine granular balance is completely beyond what GW is capable of.
With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
Then don't pay for the Power Sword if you feel that way. It's that easy.
2023/03/28 07:53:42
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
Then don't pay for the Power Sword if you feel that way. It's that easy.
Which is exactly the problem with just "paying for obviously better" either you don't need/want it and it might as well not exist. Or you want/need it and it comes down to points where you simply work out the likely return for point investment and it is a flat yes/no.
There is no niche to a power sword, its flat better than their stock melee weapon. Do you expect your infantry squads to get into melee? No? Might as well not exist and taking it is handicapping yourself. Do you expect a bit of fisticuffs? Is it priced at such a level it will make a notable enough difference over the chainsword? Either no brainer or might as well not exist again.
You could argue these factor into wider list building, but only so far as they result ultimately in the above: do I need the points? If not will I get into melee? Etc.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2023/03/28 08:00:04
2023/03/28 08:56:16
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Apple fox wrote: Can also give Sargent and commander models extra shots with las weapons, small but fun thing.
But that would just make the laspistol the auto-choice over the bolt pistol. (2 S3 AP- shots always being as good or better than 1 S4 AP- shot).
I think the issue is chicken and egg. Dudeface may be tired of it - but I'll bite.
From where we are, its impossible to give guard sergeant bolt pistols a meaningful points cost. I guess you could say 0.1-0.2 points or something - but at this level you can clearly round it down to zero with essentially zero impact on game balance. No one will win a game of 40k because they had a tiny number of S4 shots over S3 ones.
Its unlikely frankly that a game would be won or lost on a bunch of guard sergeants all having free plasma pistols - but this feels like a bigger jump. They probably should be a point or two (certainly not 5). But then we are left going "aha, you got 10 free plasma pistols across your army, you should have paid 10 points for them." But would the Guard player really have performed dramatically worse if he'd left 1.5 guard models at home? It seems unlikely.
Same with power swords. A Guard Sergeant swinning into a Marine with a power sword expects to do about 2.25 points worth of damage more than swinging with a chainsword. (Before any other rules.)
What's the "average" number of assault phases a Guard Sergeant gets to be in during a game? I suspect quite a bit less than 1.
So how many points is expecting to do 2.25~ points of additional damage if you get to swing worth? Given the amount of time the Guardsmen squad will get wiped without ever swinging at all (due to being either shot or charged), its certainly not worth 5. 1-2 points maybe?
Well we are back to "If the Guard player is getting 10 free points with his 10 free power swords, its hard to believe that's the reason he would win the game."
The thing is this logic applies throughout the game. Even having say 10 free melta guns vs lasguns doesn't necesarilly translate into as much of an uplift as you might think. And this is why Marines getting free points has made them good - but hasn't produced a 70% win rate as might have perhaps been expected.
2023/03/28 10:28:39
Subject: Points Values and what you would like 10th to Bring
Dolnikan wrote: With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
You are paying for the potential. If the cost is free, you always take it because having it is always better than not having it.
Dolnikan wrote: With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option.
Flamers and Meltaguns have too little difference to differentiate them? The differences are even more stark with special weapons, and they sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Dolnikan wrote: With melee weapons it's the same. Sure, a power sword comes with some advantages over a chainsword but for guard officers the difference is so small that it practically doesn't exist and very few people are willing to spend more on a guard officer just to make them a little bit more effective in melee. You generally won't be charging with them and if you get charged, well, chances are that you're dead anyways.
You are paying for the potential. If the cost is free, you always take it because having it is always better than not having it.
If it's not free it boils down to intent and efficiency as to whether it's worth existing or not as above.
Dolnikan wrote: With special weapons it's the same. There is very little to actually differentiate them as things are now and that means that there will generally be a best option.
Flamers and Meltaguns have too little difference to differentiate them? The differences are even more stark with special weapons, and they sure as hell shouldn't be free.
Fully agree here, but what I find funny is that traditionally there has been more reason/need to differentiate ranged weapon by points as they're allowed to have more variance (range, shots, strength, AP, damage) whereas because Melee was tied to the model carrying it, it was harder to differentiate as heavily resulting in the lovely "better or no point" stance we have now (strength, ap, damage generally). They can move away form that and people seem to want to push against it.
question designed to win points rather than have an honest discussion.
It doesn't matter. It's like you don't understand how numbers work.
