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.

Breton wrote:
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

Do you feel there is any reason why that should be the case beyond forcing it into the current design paradigm?

No, no, Breton's right. A laspistol shouldn't be inferior to a plasma pistol, just different - say, by making the laspistol free and requiring that the plasma pistol be purchased with points. This is a great way to represent the relative rarity of plasma weapons in-universe, and it also gives the plasma pistol an out-of-game downside that doesn't mess with its stats at all. I'm actually kind of shocked that GW didn't think of that one, it seems fairly obvious to me (but then, what do I know - I'm not a game dev).

 waefre_1 wrote:
No, no, Breton's right. A laspistol shouldn't be inferior to a plasma pistol, just different - say, by making the laspistol free and requiring that the plasma pistol be purchased with points. This is a great way to represent the relative rarity of plasma weapons in-universe, and it also gives the plasma pistol an out-of-game downside that doesn't mess with its stats at all. I'm actually kind of shocked that GW didn't think of that one, it seems fairly obvious to me (but then, what do I know - I'm not a game dev).

Ding, ding, dingggg... WE HAVE A WINNER!

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.

Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.

Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better. The better pistol in the lore is the one in the hands of the character with the most plot armor. Again, the 1 Shot S30 -4 D6+20 Damage gun is not superior to the 10 Shot S8 -3 Damae 3 gun its just different. Its better at this thing, and worse at that thing.

A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different

I think it could be an issue of finding enough difference in effectiveness to have effective points cost differences for a single pistol in a 10-model unit that is 65 points fully loaded.

Just how many points is that Plasma Pistol that has to be within 12" to fire and has a 1/6 chance of killing the user and only a 50% chance of hitting the target when used at it's most effective setting? Don't pretend you won't want to overcharge it for the +1 S, +1 AP, and +1 Damage.

And how many points for that Bolt Pistol that only increases the strength of the Las Pistol from 3 to 4?

Forest, trees.

A single pistol isn’t usually worth arguing over or niggling over.
But the difference between a Guard squad with heavy, special, and an up armed Sarge IS something that deserves to cost more than a barebones squad.

Breton wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Breton wrote:

Uh no thanks, a las pistol should be inferior to a plasma pistol

A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

Negative. The Plasma Pistol is canonically a superior weapon, and has been for the life of the game. Games really, as it exists in Necromunda and the RPGs as well. It is an upgrade.

Making it not an upgrade is over-design for the sake of artificial constraints which are completely unnesessary. It's the sacrifice of lore for junk design.

Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better. The better pistol in the lore is the one in the hands of the character with the most plot armor. Again, the 1 Shot S30 -4 D6+20 Damage gun is not superior to the 10 Shot S8 -3 Damae 3 gun its just different. Its better at this thing, and worse at that thing.

A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different

Soooo.....make them more expensive for characters? Whose "plot armour" is reflected by their superior BS? But still reflect their superior stats through price for non-character models? That's what I'm getting from your "plot armour" argument.

 catbarf wrote:

Breton wrote:
A las pistol should be different from, but not inferior to.

Do you feel there is any reason why that should be the case beyond forcing it into the current design paradigm?

It starts with the current design paradigm because it lends itself well to hammering this part out and finding the gaps - but variety and making choices matter are always better than being "forced" into picking the same options over and over. How many people complaining about sponsons on Leman Russ now being auto-take because they're the best/only choice are also the ones complaining upgrades need to cost points or people will always pick the same one?

If there's a choice between slow, lumbering Leman Russ with Sponsons or faster/tougher/whatever Leman Russ without the Sponsons that then complement different IG builds differently resulting in multiple distinctly different but viable IG builds that's a win. Say the slow lumbering ones have to partner with Sentinels doing the push forward while artillery and massed static infantry crawl along for a more World War I trench warfare approach, while the faster/tougher/whatever sponson free ones lend itself to Mechanized Infantry in Chimeras etc in a more World War II Blitzkrieg/73 Easting style.

The more options that are equivalent but different, the more options people can choose to take.

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

Breton wrote:
A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different

The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.

The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal, so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?

Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game?
Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?

Why introduce complex new systems for a problem that we already know can be solved with a far simpler, more granular points system.

And on the subject of characters, the 3.5 Chaos Codex had different points costs for unit characters and regular characters. Worked very well.

A Chimera should be different, not inferior to a Leman Russ, we should be counting wounds and get rid of points! Why should GW spend time balancing their game or trying to make the rules fit with the narrative when they could spend a decade trying to make Chimeras equal to Leman Russes with rules only!

Like if you need to get to an objective that is on an island surrounded by water, giving the Chimera amphibious instantly makes it just as good as a Leman Russ and you don't need points anymore because the Chimera will have a niche even we just count wounds. Besides points can never be perfect because something something melta vs tanks or infantry so you should use an AI GM for your balance needs.

 alextroy wrote:
I think it could be an issue of finding enough difference in effectiveness to have effective points cost differences for a single pistol in a 10-model unit that is 65 points fully loaded.

Just how many points is that Plasma Pistol that has to be within 12" to fire and has a 1/6 chance of killing the user and only a 50% chance of hitting the target when used at it's most effective setting? Don't pretend you won't want to overcharge it for the +1 S, +1 AP, and +1 Damage.

And how many points for that Bolt Pistol that only increases the strength of the Las Pistol from 3 to 4?

1 pt for the bolt pistol, 2 for the plasma pistol. Subtract 2 from the cost of the unit, repeat for remaining upgrades. That price a little too high or low? Still better than nothing because you have a reason for taking any of the 3 weapons. I'd need to do some math on the Predator to figure out what it's cost should be, but it'd probably be very easy to figure something out there. Would you agree that starting with the most obvious and easy cases would be a good move at the very least? Start with something like Necron resurrection orbs which represent a huge part of the Lord/Overlord's value on the table and give it a cost that is relatively small so resurrection orbs are a worthwhile upgrade in most circumstances. I don't think any of us wants to make resurrection orbs or plasma pistols overcosted and many of us would be okay with most upgrades being relatively cheap for the value they add to the unit and slowly come up to a point where 50% of units aren't blinged out.

I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

Breton wrote:
A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different

The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.

The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal,

no, I'm pointing out everything - or most everything - should be made equivalent not equal - that a pistol good at shooting gaunts should be equivalent not equal and not better or worse to one that shoots Gravis Marines so people have choices between shooting Gravis Marines (or Gaunts) with their pistols or their tanks, or their whatever.

so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?

As opposed to nothing is a side grade and proposing a complex system of what amounts to compensation (Russes with Sponsons are Shootier) to account for duplications in relative power with different kinds of points? As for the question: Why? V-A-R-I-E-T-Y. Diversity. Variation. Multifariousness. Herterogentiy. Variegation. Multiplicity, Mélange.

Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game?

Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?

Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.

I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

Breton wrote:
A laspistol that absolutely murders multiple gaunts and guardsmen is not worse than a plasma pistol that'll cook off 1 space marine, its different

The Plasma Pistol is better at murdering the Gaunts and Guardsmen as well. Probably has less of a chance of a flesh- or superficial wound. Greater chance of a kill-shot, even if it might be overkill, compared to a lowly Laspistol.

The thing is, you're asking that everything either be made equal,

no, I'm pointing out everything - or most everything - should be made equivalent not equal - that a pistol good at shooting gaunts should be equivalent not equal and not better or worse to one that shoots Gravis Marines so people have choices between shooting Gravis Marines (or Gaunts) with their pistols or their tanks, or their whatever.

so that everything is a side grade, or proposing a complex system of what essentially amounts to compensation (ie. Russes without sponsons are faster!) to account for differences in relative power with different kinds of weapons. And it begs the question: Why?

As opposed to nothing is a side grade and proposing a complex system of what amounts to compensation (Russes with Sponsons are Shootier) to account for duplications in relative power with different kinds of points? As for the question: Why? V-A-R-I-E-T-Y. Diversity. Variation. Multifariousness. Herterogentiy. Variegation. Multiplicity, Mélange.

Why, when points account for these kinds of differences in a far quicker manner that doesn't require even More Rules™ being added to the game?

Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?

Why, when a points system allows you to make choices between better or stronger weapons by spending more points, and by not making that choice you have more points to spend on other things?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.

I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.

Why does a Laspistol fire four times as fast as a Melta pistol?
Why does a Laspistol fire faster than a Lasgun?

And during list building, you should have ample time. So even if the math is tricky or complex (and for most folk, adding one to three digit numbers with a calculator if needed isn't hard) you don't need to rush it.

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.

Additionally your 'point' makes no sense because in warfare many things are in fact, objectively superior. If you have the funds available, equipping your men with NODs is in fact, completely superior to not having NODs at all (see infantry engagements in a contemporary East European theater). Likewise, having guided missiles is in fact, objectively superior in every situation to massed, imprecise missile fire. What you propose is to further strangle any bare claim 40k has to being a wargame anymore, and to replace it with participation awards wherein there are no superior guns, which makes hardly any sense. Or the argument of a Leman Russ with sponsons somehow moving slower than one with them, even though the weight difference should be negligible to the point of not mattering. Moreover moving faster isn't even an advantage for a vehicle that likely stays stationary in cover providing supporting fire for the length of a game.

 Wyzilla wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.

I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.

Breton wrote:
... equivalent not equal...

Another distinction without a difference.

You're saying that everything should be a sidegrade, and that to ensure that this is the case a whole bevvy of additional rules need to be introduced to ensure this outcome.

What we're saying is that not everything should be equivalent or equal to everything else. Some things are better, and should be better, and this should be reflected with a cost, just like it has been over the past 30+ years of this game.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.

I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.

No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.

I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.

No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.

4 shots
2 wounds
4/3 failed saves

1 shot
5/6 wounds
5/6 failed saves

Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out.
If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.

That doesn't answer the question of why the Laspistol has 4 shots all of a sudden.

Breton wrote:
Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?

I don't think you're capable of that, given how untenable your position is. It'd be a bit like making fun of the kid on crutches after both your legs have been sawn off. But to your point...

Breton wrote:
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?

Because those aren't rules. They are values. The actual rules for what points do are already written, and incredibly straightforward: You just add them together. Your method is adding lots of additional rules for no real gain.

 vict0988 wrote:
A Chimera should be different, not inferior to a Leman Russ, we should be counting wounds and get rid of points! Why should GW spend time balancing their game or trying to make the rules fit with the narrative when they could spend a decade trying to make Chimeras equal to Leman Russes with rules only!

Sarcasm without an actual arguement doesn't add much to a discussion. But let's run with it. How many models can the Leman Russ Transport? Is the Chimera better because it can Transport models? Or is it different?

What is the most off-putting part of the new Combat Patrol Rules? Every Codex Space Marine army is going to be 1 Terminator Captain, 1 Terminator Librarian, 5 Terminators, and a 5 man Infernus Squad. EVERY Deathguard Combat Patrol is going to be Typhus, a Putrefier, 7 Plaguemarines, and 30 Poxwalkers. Can you imagine a Deathguard vs Deathguard mirror match? Poor Typus is going to be exhausted. Sad Trombone for Custodes have lost what meager options they ever had. Of course, they're still in better shape than the Imperial Knights player, so silver linings and all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That doesn't answer the question of why the Laspistol has 4 shots all of a sudden.

Breton wrote:
Do you want me to make fun of you with the rules for Checkers 40,000 again for this fewer rules is always better fallacy?

I don't think you're capable of that, given how untenable your position is. It'd be a bit like making fun of the kid on crutches after both your legs have been sawn off. But to your point...

Breton wrote:
By the way how exactly is:
Add 25 Points for This Sponson
Add 35 Points for That Sponson
Add 45 Points for yet A Different Sponson
Fewer rules than:
Take Any Sponson you want, or add +2 to MV for No Sponson?

Because those aren't rules. They are values. The actual rules for what points do are already written, and incredibly straightforward: You just add them together. Your method is adding lots of additional rules for no real gain.

So the 3 rules on the datasheet that allow you to pick a sponson for cost are... not rules.
But the rule on the datasheet that says take any sponson or add 2 to MV is... too many rules. Gotcha.

Simple answer "guardsman firearm" a consolidated sidearm of whatever stats you like. Or "this model is armed with a plasma pistol but choose to model freely as it has no further pistol options". Because if you want points, you end up back in that hole where its either never worth it or always worth it due to lack of granularity in their current scale.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

Breton wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Breton wrote:
Its a canonically stronger weapon, not better.

Talk about a distinction without a difference...

OK, lets try this again - What is a better pistol vs 20 Termaguants: a melta pistol with 1 S8 -4 D6+1 shot, or a laspistol with 4 S3 -0 D1 shots?

The trick when arguing about mathematical outcomes in a wargame wherein what is effective can be easily predicted by napkin math, is to actually be good at it. Your 'point' is DOA because the melta pistol is objectively superior to four las pistol shots. Shockingly wounding things on 2's and completely ignoring the armor save is a lot better than wounding on 4's and having a 5up.

I mean, in this specific and contrived scenario, the Laspistol is better. Due to firing faster than a Lasgun and even a Heavy Bolter, against specifically T3 W1 5+ models, and assuming they have the same BS, it does 60% more damage.
Now, if we're dealing with, say, a Sister Of Battle (T3 W1 3+/6++) then suddenly the Melta Pistol is better.
And if we're dealing with something really out there, like, I dunno... a Space Marine (T4 W2 3+) the Melta pistol is only about 3.75 times better.

No, it doesn't, as I already explained. A guardsmen with a melta pistol is more likely to kill a gaunt the majority of the time than the one with a multi shot las pistol. As I mentioned, wounding on 2's opposed to 4's, and completely ignoring the save, is far more efficient than multiple shots with something that has to get past a 4+ to wound and a 5+ save. There is barely any context wherein a 4 shot laspistol is superior to a 1 shot melta pistol, lasfire is quite simply, garbage at killing anything.Not a lot of toughness 2 enemies out there.

4 shots
2 wounds
4/3 failed saves

1 shot
5/6 wounds
5/6 failed saves

Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out.
If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.

And I'm not suggesting actual numbers, just the paradigm. Different preferred targets/results/etc. for different choices that end up providing a reasonably equivalent result of that choice in it's desired application. I haven't even pointed out yet the problem with reducing lethality and encouraging movement on a Leman Russ with No Sponsons is easier if you get bonus movement vs if you get unspent points to buy more guns.

Breton wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
I get the feeling that the proponents of the "new system" just want to hammer every square peg into a round hole, damn the consequences.

I get the feeling everyone who tries to assign a negative motive to people that disagree with them are just poisoning the well during a temper tantrum.

A.....temper tantrum?

No, no, no. I was basically done with any interest in 10th edition with the preview of the CSM rules, and al subsequent articles have only further cemented that feeling. I'm not angry about this, as I have no vested interest in it. I'm just here for the theoretical arguments about it. And those supporting the "10th edition paradigm", are absolutely hilarious, IMHO. No anger here, I assure you.

Edit: Fixed the quotes.

Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.

From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.

From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.

As an example? Plus you just pointed out the math does work. May not work enough but that's why I pointed out they were just semi-random un-playtested numbers to flesh out the the theory not as a direct drop-in replacement.

Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.

Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Then why did you use actual numbers? It seems pretty clear that said numbers do not work.

From a mechanics point of view? The Melta Pistol is so much better against such a wide variety of targets that the minor boost against weak targets is not worth it.
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.

As an example? Plus you just pointed out the math does work. May not work enough but that's why I pointed out they were just semi-random un-playtested numbers to flesh out the the theory not as a direct drop-in replacement.

...
"Somewhat better against T3 models with one wound, no FNP, and at best a 4+ armor; but vastly worse against basically everything else," is not exactly balanced against one another.
And "Every sergeant is so good with their pistol that they're twice as effective as a regular grunt with a rifle, unless the pistol is in any way special" is not the kinda thing that makes sense in the lore.

 JNAProductions wrote:
From an in-universe point of view? Why the hell is this pistol firing faster than the actual rifle? And either the sergeant is literally four times as effective as his men with his pistol, or at 12" Infantry squads put down 40 shots.

because 40k combat is modelled after WW1 to early WW2 combat
hence a pistol is full automatic while rifles are not and rifles with weak ammunition exist next to sidearms with strong ammunition (but officers needed to buy those on their own and are not standard issue equipment)

for the lasgun itself, lore wise it is more reliable and easier to maintain so as strategic advantages that are not present in the game at all (as there is no out of ammo rule or similar)

 Tyran wrote:
Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.

Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.

Pretty sure that Cain, specifically, carries a laspistol instead of a Plasma pistol, because of self preservation. It is his #1 motivation, of course.

 JNAProductions wrote:
4 shots
2 wounds
4/3 failed saves

1 shot
5/6 wounds
5/6 failed saves

Look, I'm 100% against Breton's ideas here, but the math against Gaunts, at least, checks out.
If you're looking at just "Kills at least one Gaunt" then, assuming BS4+, the Laspistol with 4 shots has a just over 50% chance, while the Melta pistol has just over a 40% chance.

Ah I think I figured out the issue, I was using the calculator rather than doing it manually and for some reason d6 damage is viewed by it as increasing dead models to 1.6, rather odd it does that.

 Tyran wrote:
Lore wise the laspistol does have its advantages. It is easier to maintain, easier to fire, more precise, more robust and has faster projectile speed (because laser) which also in theory should mean better range and of course doesn't tend to explode.

Lore wise there should be a reason why characters like Cain go around with a laspistol instead of any other pistol weapon, but many of those reasons don't translate well to the tabletop.

I would rather point out though that even just looking at IRL combat, the idea of using pistols in first place is ridiculous and pointless, and if one is going to carry a pistol at all, it makes far more sense for it to be a valuable tactical asset that can blow up a tank vs something that barely scratches the paint on most threatening enemies you'll come to face. Carrying bolt pistols or las pistols just outright doesn't make sense for Guard/Marines, arguably less sensible than melee weapons since you can't parry a Tyranid's claw to your face with a gun that well.

This also carries over to the wargame itself as I cannot think of a single time that any pistol proved worthwhile at all for me in any context.