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.

 Wyzilla wrote:

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.

40k isn't IRL combat. Melee combat is far more relevant than in IRL and thus having a melee weapon as the primary weapon with a pistol as a side arm makes sense in-universe.

 Tyran wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

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.

40k isn't IRL combat. Melee combat is far more relevant than in IRL and thus having a melee weapon as the primary weapon with a pistol as a side arm makes sense in-universe.

Except even in the wargame the pistol barely ever matters given its short range and usually worthless damage potential. The melee weapon does far more heavy lifting while the pistol eats up points or is just a cost-free default taken. All of my Sergeants run around with combi weapons when available for a reason. Moreover even within the constraints of a setting, the pistol just doesn't make much sense to bother carrying compared to more ammo for a rifle, or packing a specialist pistol at least that will absolutely fry the enemy instead of tickling them.

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.

Breton wrote:

 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!

How many models can the Leman Russ Transport? Is the Chimera better because it can Transport models? Or is it different?

A Chimera is very obviously much worse than a Leman Russ, even if it was aquatic (which the designer sadly forgot). You try spamming Leman Russes in a game and pay Chimera prices and then take a 4 Chimeras in the next game but pay 200 pts for each. What would it take to convince you? I'm sorry but I think you've married yourself to the idea, this is not trying to attack you, we all do it sometimes. For me to change my mind I would have to be pointed to a reason why having PL is more important than having a coherent narrative.

 Wyzilla wrote:
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.

I was 99% sure that all riflemen carried pistols previously, thanks for the info.

Within the constraints of the setting carrying a pistol makes sense because humans usually aren't strong enough to fire a rifle and use a sword at the same time. Even even when they are, the ergonomics are kinda awful.

And within those same constraints, plasma pistol while powerful are unreliable and fragile and explody; bolt pistols have a painful recoil and require quite heavy ammo and also prone to jamming; meanwhile laspistol is lightweight, precise, pretty much impossible to jam, robust and its ammo is plentiful. And while weak, that can be mitigated with good shot placement (Cain did kill a Warboss with a laspistol because even a Warboss' eyes are not laser prof).

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.

"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.

I like the idea that more wargear options are genuine role-dependent sidegrades, and it's okay to bake their costs into the unit itself.

However, if the "option" is either a straightforward upgrade to default wargear (e.g., Harlequin's special weapon vs. Troupe Master's blade) or is a piece of equipment you take in addition (e.g., all the shooty weapons on Wracks) then it should definitely cost some points.

The latter is not conducive to good game balance as it is right now. I really hope GW will fix that, which should be fairly easy with the way Munitorum Field Manual works.

 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.

There is a reason - rarity and logistics. Just because a character is a protagonist doesn't mean that plasma pistols fall from the sky. You would need a great deal of pull or connections to get your hand on rare items like that.



This whole discussion is going around in circles.

GW haven't produced 4 shot laspistols as a 'balance' against a plasma pistol, so any theoreticals are pointless.

GW currently have distinctly different options that are not equivalent value that are treated as equal for points. That is a problem.

The game mechanics have not changed enough for weapon profiles to suddenly be equivalent after decades of them being differently costed. No great mystery has been revealed or discovered that forever changed game design between 9th and 10th ed. If anyone had tried to use these arguments in any previous edition to flatten all points costs no one would take it seriously.

This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.

"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.

Solid option to achieve what? Who is winning? Why has nobody suggested units become faster without sponsons previously? Because they don't think the idea makes sense in this game. Now you guys are itching to make this silly idea work. If GW fudges some numbers to make roughly equivalent weapons on a unit be of roughly equal value and then they make both options cost the same, no problem. But the idea that sponsons are a net-neutral in terms of what value they bring to the battlefield makes no sense. Why would the Imperium equip any tanks with sponsons if they don't have value on the battlefield or do they have to spend labour to take them off to get the better mobility and smoother profile?

 Hellebore wrote:
This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.

How so? Nobody is saying GW done it so there PL is good. I think ChaosxOmega mentioned some of his favourite designers not liking to fiddle with points costs for upgrades, which was fallacious, but I don't think anybody as ever said that GW's design is beyond reproach. Like the example of making sponsonless vehicles faster is in itself a criticism that GW have not implemented that yet and therefore sponsons are an obvious upgrade.

Because it never entered the 40k zeitgeist until the authority did it and suddenly something no one was talking about is now being defended as entirely sensible and meaningful.

The basis for the argument is coming from the assumed authority GW gave it by publishing it in the first place.

If they had provided upgrade points costs, no one would be arguing it should be dropped in lieu of flattened squad costs.

So all I see are people taking that GW authority as a legitimacy for something that wasn't a thing until now.

Breton wrote:

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.

Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take. The only thing this system does is not charge appropriately for them and thereby mess up the balance of the game.

You may notice that all of your examples to try to squeeze everything into this free upgrades paradigm rely on making up numbers that bear no relation to the lore to try to justify equal costs. The answer to this "problem" is really simple and has been in use in 40k for decades. If you have to jump through so many hoops to get things to work in the new system it's the system that's at fault. The extreme end point of your approach would be to have every unit cost the same and just have them all be sidegrades of one another. That's obviously absurd, so I'm not sure why it's any less absurd to try the same thing with upgrades.

justifying what GW is doing as the only one possible and best solution to a problem that was not there before

no one asked to remove upgrade points because list building is too complicated
now it is the only option to keep things simple and it won't make a difference anyway

it is literally the same with all changes GW comes along that makes things worse or with discussing suggestions/house rules that are identical to stuff that is later changed by GW


best example is still AV/Facings as people suggested to remove it and gave everything Toughness since 4th Edition, yet there were strong arguments against and why it is the one thing that makes 40k the game it is
and now of someone thinks about adding those back, there is no way this is going to work or how it could improve it


It does not matter what the rules are about, as long as those are the official sanctioned ones from GW, those are the best possible ones and nothing is wrong with them
as soon as GW drops them and replaces them it was the worst possible option and is gone for good

PS: should save all those posts for the case this is just an Index thing and upgrade points come back with the Codizes

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

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.

Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take.

That was my point. Add Two Sponsons with X, Y, or Z, or add 2" to MV isn't more rules than Add Sponsons X for A, Sponsons Y for B, or Sponsons Z for C isn't more rules.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
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.

The same is not true for sponsons or resurrection orbs.

"All necron over/lords come equipped with a resurrection orb"
Sponsons maybe need a point but as others suggested using it to make them faster without etc might be a solid option.

Solid option to achieve what? Who is winning? Why has nobody suggested units become faster without sponsons previously? Because they don't think the idea makes sense in this game. Now you guys are itching to make this silly idea work. If GW fudges some numbers to make roughly equivalent weapons on a unit be of roughly equal value and then they make both options cost the same, no problem. But the idea that sponsons are a net-neutral in terms of what value they bring to the battlefield makes no sense. Why would the Imperium equip any tanks with sponsons if they don't have value on the battlefield or do they have to spend labour to take them off to get the better mobility and smoother profile?

Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.

 Hellebore wrote:
This entire farce is a massive argument from authority fallacy.

How so? Nobody is saying GW done it so there PL is good. I think ChaosxOmega mentioned some of his favourite designers not liking to fiddle with points costs for upgrades, which was fallacious, but I don't think anybody as ever said that GW's design is beyond reproach. Like the example of making sponsonless vehicles faster is in itself a criticism that GW have not implemented that yet and therefore sponsons are an obvious upgrade.

This, nobody in here is saying outright the system is correct and GW can't do better, the average opinion seems to be "they half assed about 3 things and made it worse than the sum of its parts". The common opinion seems to want to see either the parity of options through to conclusion or to reintroduce granular points. Both will lead to imbalanced armies and games, it's just how you get there at that point.

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

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.

Those three rules to allow you to pick a sponson would still exist. You're not removing any "rules" from the datasheet for the unit. We still need a list of things we can and can't take.

That was my point. Add Two Sponsons with X, Y, or Z, or add 2" to MV isn't more rules than Add Sponsons X for A, Sponsons Y for B, or Sponsons Z for C isn't more rules.

No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.

I've tried explaining that.

Adding rules to make up for differences in ability isn't the same as having different points costs. Points aren't rules.

Dudeface wrote:
Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.

Really? You never made a list where you ended up with a few points left or over and looked where to cut some upgrades or where to add them?

 Hellebore wrote:
Because it never entered the 40k zeitgeist until the authority did it and suddenly something no one was talking about is now being defended as entirely sensible and meaningful.

The basis for the argument is coming from the assumed authority GW gave it by publishing it in the first place.

If they had provided upgrade points costs, no one would be arguing it should be dropped in lieu of flattened squad costs.

So all I see are people taking that GW authority as a legitimacy for something that wasn't a thing until now.

Nailed it. Like, hard. This is just people attempting to defend the indefensible, all because gw did it. Even up to suggestions that gw didn't do. The points system has existed for decades, no reason to abandon it.

If your Leman Russ shoots all game at effective targets sponsons ought to be good, if your Leman Russ shots once before being removed sponsons ought to be bad. Depending on your meta and the rest of your list you should evaluate whether your Leman Russ is a disposable asset or something you get to keep around.

solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons

a_typical_hero wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why not, are you suggesting that having sponsons is net better overall and always should be? If so why not remove the option to not have them? Literally the only benefit to not having them in a game sense is reduced points and all that happens then is a bit of maths to find out if more chassis main cannons > than fewer chassis with extra guns which is boring AF in reality and there's rarely any incentive to take them without the sponsons in reality.

Really? You never made a list where you ended up with a few points left or over and looked where to cut some upgrades or where to add them?

Not on a model like a tank with sponsons which are usually permanently attached for me.

 kodos wrote:
solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons

Which we can then consolidate into one datasheet that says "can be equipped with a pair of sponson weapons for +x points" to reduce the bloat

Dudeface wrote:
Not on a model like a tank with sponsons which are usually permanently attached for me.

Interesting. I never glued my sponson weapons in place, so I can switch them to be WYSIWYG conform or let them at home entirely.

Slipspace wrote:

No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.

So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?

A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kodos wrote:
solution is easy anyway, you have a datacard without sponsons and one datacard with them
so you get different points for the naked one and the one with sponsons

That can open up Leman Russ overload going around the Rule of Three - though they can just do the same thing they did with Daemon Princes. Its probably the "better" choice tho, because they tend to not allow us to modify the statline except for +1W on models that already have a 4+ when taking a Storm Shield.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I've tried explaining that.

Adding rules to make up for differences in ability isn't the same as having different points costs. Points aren't rules.

The one line rule on the data sheet that lets you take two sponsons for 25 points is points!

The one line rule that lets you add 2" to MV for not taking a sponson is rules!

*cough* who cares about more rules or fewer rules [i]when the rules are logical, consistent and make some sort of sense?

the issue here is the lack of making sense and trying to equate as equal things which are quite evidently unequal and calling it "simplicity" when actually all its doing is making trying to approximately balance two forces so its the players skill on the table, not in the "list building phase" that determines the output more

list building is obviously a skill yes and it should matter, but not be everything

as a side note the idea that a tank moves slower the more "upgrades" you add as a balance factor is one I quite like, resource management other than just points

 Wyzilla wrote:


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.

I used to love my Lady Archons with the Blast Pistols - especially when I killed stupid Woof Lords on Woofs with them...

Breton wrote:
That can open up Leman Russ overload going around the Rule of Three

you mean like they do with Space Marine Captains, because instead of all being 1 Datasheet with different upgrades we get different Datasheets with different point costs, or with Landspeeders etc

but I guess we need more rules to prevent those things, something like a definition shared by all of them that takes the limit, best be a single word, maybe call it keyword and add max 3 of the same LRBT keyword?

but I fear this would be simplistic and not simple and therefore not suited for 40k


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
the issue here is the lack of making sense and trying to equate as equal things which are quite evidently unequal and calling it "simplicity" when actually all its doing is making trying to approximately balance two forces so its the players skill on the table, not in the "list building phase" that determines the output more

not like GW is failing on that one for several editions now
player skill only matters of both chose the right faction and the right list, if one happens to not wanting to play the right faction for whatever reason it is their choice in losing the game before it started
and fanboys will call this "narrative" or "casual" and say that playing the game is not about having a chance to win but to have fun

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.

So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?

A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!

I don't view paying points for upgrades as a rule in the same sense as some bespoke change to a unit based on what upgrades you take, no. One is a universally applied concept that's core to army building. The other is an attempt to excuse the problems that arise when you mess up that points system by making everything free. You're adding extra stuff to the datasheet to try to "fix" a problem that's been solved literally since the 1st edition of 40k.

Honestly if you're going so far as to make every weapon or upgrade sidegrades even when that doesn't make sense (like when there's nothing it's replacing in the first place), the next logical conclusion is to go the extra mile and make ever unit a sidegrade to each other and just deleted points wholesale! That's get rid of all those "extra rules" and even delete a whole document!

I mean, if a laspistol should have 4 shots to make it equal to a plasma pistol, it's only logical that you can do the same to make a guardsman equal to a space marine and it wouldn't break immersion or the game rules or anything like that.

...Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds now?

Slipspace wrote:

Breton wrote:

Slipspace wrote:

No, your proposal has more rules because you need to add the extra rules for a different stat if you don't choose an option, but you still need to retain the list of options on the datasheet. Equating a points cost to a rule just strikes me as a dishonest attempt to justify an untenable position.

So only the lines on the datasheet you don't like are rules? The rest are point costs?

A line is a line is a rule is a rule. Pay 25 points for sponsons, or Pay 2 MV for Sponsons isn't so drastically different, but thanks for the laugh at trying to insinuate dishonesty over it. That was even funnier than 25 points for Sponsons is a cost, 2 Movement Rating is a rule!

I don't view paying points for upgrades as a rule in the same sense as some bespoke change to a unit based on what upgrades you take, no. One is a universally applied concept that's core to army building. The other is an attempt to excuse the problems that arise when you mess up that points system by making everything free. You're adding extra stuff to the datasheet to try to "fix" a problem that's been solved literally since the 1st edition of 40k.

If its been solved since 1st edition, it can't be broke now.

I do admit I'm loving the "My way isn't a rule" line in the sand y'all are drawing. This line telling me what I can do and how to do it is not a rule because points. But adding an ELSE statement to the IF/THEN part totally makes it a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Honestly if you're going so far as to make every weapon or upgrade sidegrades even when that doesn't make sense (like when there's nothing it's replacing in the first place), the next logical conclusion is to go the extra mile and make ever unit a sidegrade to each other and just deleted points wholesale! That's get rid of all those "extra rules" and even delete a whole document!

I mean, if a laspistol should have 4 shots to make it equal to a plasma pistol, it's only logical that you can do the same to make a guardsman equal to a space marine and it wouldn't break immersion or the game rules or anything like that.

...Do you see how ridiculous this all sounds now?

Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?

Also, if you're going to go Reductio Ad Absurdum, don't go halfway, or someone else will go all the way: Why bother balancing 2,000 points vs 2,000 points? As long as we're getting rid of points, lets go whole hog. Everybody gets a quarter. First one to flip heads 10 times wins.

Breton wrote:
Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?

I thought points are bad or something?

 AtoMaki wrote:

Breton wrote:
Have you seen the points costs for 5/10 Marine units in Power Armor?

I thought points are bad or something?

Points per unit = ok, points for every doodad they have on them needing to be differentiated = bad I think is the oversimplification.