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.

the biggest sign that GW do listen is that when the blew up warhammer for the pointless AoS and it got a not exactly amazing reaction until they put a point system in was that 40k didn't get the same treatment in 8th, which apparently was the initial plan and that its taken them until now to even try it

Also, GW not caring about what people online think is not a defence of either GW or their approach to game design, but rather a condemnation of it.

And it wasn't always that way, nor does it have to be. I have a print out of the official gw errata/faq for the 6th edition Dark Elf army book, written by Gav Thorpe, which thanks the community at Druchii.net for their input.

All this debating about PL and Granular Points is nice, but I think we have a pretty good roadmap on what to expect for the next 9-12 months:

warhammer-40000-metawatch-storming-into-10th-edition wrote:These are updates made for balance purposes – to keep the game fun for all – and we plan to revisit rules in this way with quarterly points updates, and rules updates every six months.

We’re also expecting a wider errata for all the new game content later in July. With 1,000 or more units and hundreds of pages of brand-new rules across 24 factions now in the wild, and thousands of games already played globally, a few more odd typos and niche interactions have been spotted, and we’d like to get them cleared up.

So I expect the following:

July: Datasheet Errata with possible MFM updates to address only points for units with errata. There will be no wargear points.

Autumn: New MFM with no wargear points.

Winter: Balance Dataslate that attempts to address the big issues, like a second stab at Towering and Indirect Fire. Possible new datasheets for some units to divide the problematic wargear from the other wargear (Wraithknight with Heavy Wraithcannon) along with New MFM with no wargear points .

Spring: Yet another new MFM with no wargear points, because GW isn't giving up on it that fast.

Summer: Balance Dataslate. In this MFM GW may finally give up the fight and provide wargear points... for the broken options only. No per model points nor will most wargear or even units have wargear points.

I get a big "The beatings will continue until morale improves!" vibe from that list. How depressing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
While I believe that upgrade points and points in general is better for a balanced game (especially if one of the players has a limited collection which includes a lot of suboptimal builds), but I do like how quick it is to build a list with the new system. It’s totally fine for casual games where you really don’t care if your 15 or so points short.

Except that sometimes you're not 15 points short. Sometimes you're 45 points short, or 55 points short, or 60, and have nothing to spend it on.

Building lists in this new system isn't quick, it's tedious, because it's a jigsaw puzzle with parts that don't fit right, and all the edges are sharp.

I think that depends on your collection. I have yet to be more than 10pts off as I can usually add enhancements if I’ve already taken the units I want. I can imagine it harder for a player with limited model choice, however.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Considering that the majority of voices here fell into one of two camps, the first being "Feth PL!" and the other being "I don't use PL, but I don't care if it exists," if they were listening to Dakka, they wouldn't've done what they did.

I'd guess they care about SOME of the opinions on Dakka - but not many. Usually when the opinions here are about a glaring objective flaw like the Deathwatch-Mortal Wound interaction but not a subjective design choice.

Gert wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Why is the opinion that the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed controversial, then?

It might be your opinion and it might be the opinions of many on Dakka but it isn't my opinion.

So to quote you:

Gert wrote: nobody at any point has said the current or even power system was perfect.

What are you saying? Something like

"My opinion is that the current system is not flawed and does not need to be fixed, but is also not perfect."

I don't understand how you can believe something is flawless and then claim you aren't saying it is perfect, LMAO. They're literally synonyms.

Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...

(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)

I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...

(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)

I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.

Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...

(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)

I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...

(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)

I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.

Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?

I think there is a reasonable-to-hold position basically saying 'It's not perfect, it could be improved, but under real conditions messing with it any further would probabyl create at least as many problems as it would fix, so better leave it as it is at the moment and gather some more data before we procede' - not quite the adage 'never touch a running system', but close to it. Changing stuff all the time has a negative impact on its own, and sometimes letting something improvable, but not glaringly broken be for the time can be the right move. You only need to look at how they messed up the Wraithknight or Imperial Guard Field Batteries for unintended consequences of a 'hotfix'. We know they have errata in the pipeline, and some problems could only be fixed with a sweeping redesign of e.g. the wargear system, so maybe waiting a bit is not the worst one could do.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
Your private games/non-games haven't ruined anything but silently liking PL isn't all you are doing. You, and many other people, defend PL in disputes like this and give GW ammunition for their confirmation bias in believing that PL is working fine, opposition to PL is just a vocal minority of TFGs, and the silent majority agrees with them in wanting PL to be the only system.

This is the last thing I'm going to say here. The GW rules writers do not care a tinkers fig about the opinions found on Dakka, Reddit, Bolter and Chainsword, or any other forum/discussion website.

That's a big claim. Any proof?

Or is this a "Screw you guys, your opinions don't matter anyways?"

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/520064.page

I might have posted this link before ITT, but that above is the only datapoint we have that shows the size of the online community and it is a decade old. TL;DR, everyone saying the online community is a mere blip is talking out their backsides, and that spurious claim only gets less and less with each passing year.

I know they pay attention.

Andy Hoare told me a number of years back that the studio knew who I was. I was referred to as a "very naughty boy".

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

Correct, but surely someone who says "it's acceptable" won't resist someone who says "it could be improved" unless they believe it is literally impossible to improve it without ruining it...

(And believing something can't be further improved is believing it is perfect, no?)

I mean he is basically saying "*I and others enjoy it how it is, ergo, it is fine*" and then when other people point out that it could be improved by returning to points, he dodges with "I didn't say it was perfect!" which... yeah technically "it's fine" isn't the same as "it's literally perfect" but the argument is disingenuous.

Rather than spin some weird analogy, surely "I accept it's not perfect but I prefer this way and you suggestion makes it worse for me" isn't that hard to understand?

and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.

There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.

The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".

The current option is definitely somewhere in between.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:


and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.

Majority of dakka, which may or may not be representative.

But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.

Dudeface wrote:
But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.

Then where do you draw the line? How many different point systems should the game have? We could have classic PL, the current pseudo-PL, the traditional point system, each unit's point cost being its total wounds value, list building by "take 15 units each", etc. We could even break it down even further, with each system having a static version and one that is updated every quarter. Total chaos but every opinion is valued and included!

Or we could acknowledge that PL is a badly designed system with inherent systemic errors that offers negligible value in return for its flaws, dump the redundant system entirely, and unify the game around the traditional point system.

Dudeface wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:


and at that point one could point to the 3:1 ratio and accept that one has a firmly established minority position and realise that the majority has not to live by the rules of the minority.

Majority of dakka, which may or may not be representative.

But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.

No, i don't know any person outside even of dakka that looks at this in the context of GW and think it is a smart move for them to do (the pl-ification of points.) because they A believe it can't work for a multitude of reasons, or B if they know such a system from certain historicals clearly state that GW rulesdesigners have not the necessary required skill and cohesive design vision to manage to create such a system.

It's also a question of time for rulesdesign, which is lackluster without even getting spread appart, so it's also a ressource question to a degree. But fundamentally if GW would have more and better rulesdesigners an argument could be made for a dual rule system or indeed a switch over. Again pointing to other historicals with such a system working extremely well compared to anything gw does... FFS HH works better than what 40k does and a multitude of smaller games within gw do so either, it0s just the 40k rulesteam once again getting arrogant and unwilling to learn.

But i do agree the current system does, let's be honest , not satisfy any side realistically if it is interested in a decent degree of balance at all. It merely has pushed the opportunity cost addition around that is going on in everyones head when designing a list, not facilitated a system that enforces "healthy" force building and by extention also has whole factions (Knights, and custodes as sole factions and so too arguably the recently split out legions considering WE wouldn't in an actually deep wargame be a functioning army for the lack of a decent shooting and maneouvre component) that shouldn't be considered in the state that they are to have a place within the game. But since cat out of bag we have to deal with it and that is the issue we are facing right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
But in a true democracy, yes options for both are wise at the very least.

Then where do you draw the line? How many different point systems should the game have? We could have classic PL, the current pseudo-PL, the traditional point system, each unit's point cost being its total wounds value, list building by "take 15 units each", etc. We could even break it down even further, with each system having a static version and one that is updated every quarter. Total chaos but every opinion is valued and included!

Or we could acknowledge that PL is a badly designed system with inherent systemic errors that offers negligible value in return for its flaws, dump the redundant system entirely, and unify the game around the traditional point system.

Cut the pseudo PL points and call it a day, no seriously, then look at PL once / year and points 1/ quarter, use the only site that you have, make both points and rules changes freely available.

It's not rocket science and other companies have long since abandoned the rulessales system and opted for free rules, since GW is a model company according to their own words it would be nice if they'd put their money where their mouth is.
But we all know that GW won't accept the loss of a reccuring monetisation system and spread out release system to flatten their quartal numbers into a more linear system.
Even though everyone and especially GW's shareholders should understand that the covid boom was just that and accept that there will be a phase now in which there will be less sold, instead of just throwing out everything all at once in an effort to keep numbers high.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.

There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.

The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".

The current option is definitely somewhere in between.

The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.

There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.

The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".

The current option is definitely somewhere in between.

The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.

Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that. That's total game design scope and weapon profiles which make that constraint.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know they pay attention.

Andy Hoare told me a number of years back that the studio knew who I was. I was referred to as a "very naughty boy".

surely that has got to be better than "who are you?" though

leopard wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I know they pay attention.

Andy Hoare told me a number of years back that the studio knew who I was. I was referred to as a "very naughty boy".

surely that has got to be better than "who are you?" though

I to this day still find it funny that they dubbed the chaos amiriger Wardog. When i called my kitbash for daemonengine stand ins that before wardogs were a thing Yes you can check out the dates of my wardogs in the blog. Which i created in 18, and in may 19 i started calling them Wardogs may 22 then the War Dog Carnivores and stalkers show up

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.

There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.

The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".

The current option is definitely somewhere in between.

The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.

Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that.

Why don't points deliver perfect imbalance?

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Flawed means broken.
Flawless means perfect.
There’s a mid ground between the two-not perfect, but not broken. Acceptable.

And PL/the current system is completely flawed. It doesn't FALL in that middle.

It's more flawed than not but it does fall in there. Things do have a form of points value, there is some measure of attempted balance going on.

There are also numerous ways of getting away from their current corner and not all of them require direct wagear costs. As such one solution (adding granular item costs) back in, might not please someone who likes the idea of parity in choices enabling them to be free, or someone else who prefer less options to restrict variables.

The two ends of the spectrum are a totally balanced game where no matter what you bring it gives good odds of a fair competition, which as you'll note doesn't mention points anywhere. The other end of the spectrum is Sigmar on launch of "bring some minis, yell some stupid gak and roll dice because who cares".

The current option is definitely somewhere in between.

The opposite of perfect balance is perfect imbalance, where one player never has a chance of winning, so AoS 0,0 was actually quite good since you sometimes on accident had balanced games /sarcasm. To fall in the middle you have to at least try to make everything balanced, PL does not try to make everything balanced, so it doesn't fall in the middle. Nobody thinks perfect balance is possible or desired with the current rules using pts, we want perfect imbalance. Lascannons should be bad against Boys, good against Trukks, not equally good against both and points can deliver that result, PL cannot.

Neither points nor PL alone deliver that, arguably even with they don't deliver that.

Why don't points deliver perfect imbalance?

To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.

Dudeface 810334 11563730/null wrote:
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.

Make the lascannon (including wielder) 10pts and the heavy bolter 40pts, watch me zap all the hordes :p

In all seriousness though, point cost is simply an attribute of a weapon, a lever that allows you to balance a weapon against other weapons without altering how it performs on the battlefield. Points make it possible to have stuff that isn't balanced in stats. Say laspistol vs plasma pistol, but also bolters on devastators.

Points make adding new stuff easier too. Want to add a gun for devastators as it's described in a new BL novel, say some archaeotech blaster with 36" S20 AP -4 D6 and 5 shots (imagine some other less ridiculous stat line if you like, it's just a placeholder for the argument):
- making it 1 per squad max doesn't fix the fact that it outperforms the other options, it just makes each dev squad take 1 of these + whatever other stuff they actually wanted to take.
- making it weaker but equal to existing weapons doesn't work with the fluff, why is the mighty dark age archaeotech blaster outperformed by a lascannon?
- making the other weapon options stronger inevitably causes a game-wide power creep cascade as xenos start complaining about their suddenly anemic guns.
- don't introduce a new weapon type after all? I mean, yeah, but this is gw. Their sales dept overlords would dreadsock you for even whispering it.
- ? Did I miss something?

Or, you keep the blaster as is but slap a matching* point cost on it.


* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.

shortymcnostrill wrote:


* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.

Realistically this is the underlying issue and why I think a lore more people are going with "don't like it but meh - whatever".

But yes you're exactly right, points are a component of making something behave the way it should, but as you say it is possible to exist without needing to assign it a cost if appropriate.

Dudeface wrote:

shortymcnostrill wrote:


* gw historically failing to apply points doesn't mean points are bad, just that they are bad at points. In fact they're bad at balance in general, whether using points or not.

Realistically this is the underlying issue and why I think a lore more people are going with "don't like it but meh - whatever".

But yes you're exactly right, points are a component of making something behave the way it should, but as you say it is possible to exist without needing to assign it a cost if appropriate.

But for that, once again, beeing the case, we would require weaponry to interact with the core mechanics in specific ways, as some historicals that have been brought up do f.e.

Core mechanics that GW has cut out of their games and or never implemented corectly in the first place in 40k. With points for upgrades atleast there is a tool for GW to theorethically fix some issues by increasing associated cost. Without points we are at the stage were GW in full panic mode had to hike the price of all wriathknights by what was it 100 pts? Ignoring of course that the melee variant also completly and utterly got through that nerfed into oblivion.

that is also why their hiring of a matched play rules dude is laughable, because that won't solve the issue of unifiying design visions for the core rules and for the mechanics and later on forces interacting with them. NVM the questionable supposed pay.

Dudeface wrote:
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.

Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.

Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.

Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.

The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.

Dudeface wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To use your example, a 1 shot lascannon with high strength, ap and damage is obviously going to be better into a trukk than a Guardsman. The multi shot heavy bolter with a better rate of fire, adequate strength, ap and damage for infantry will be better into the boyz inside. None of those statements involve points, the design scope for the weapons gives that balance for you.

Lascannons are betters vs Boys than lasguns. That is true until the moment you have points that make lascannons more expensive such that the lascannon becomes less efficient against everything and inefficient enough against Boys that it becomes a downgrade against Boys.

Yes, you've picked an extreme example there because literally the only redeeming trait of a lasgun is the cheapness of the thing holding it.

The point is a weapons ideal target isn't decided by how many points the gun costs.

I get where you are coming from, what with the ideal target being mostly determined by the profile of the weapon and availability of it in a squad /army.

However, even in militia if i'd price the HB instead of +5 pts for a hwt at say 15 like a lascannon for that squad it would become rather fast obvious that the normal stubber the hwt's come standard with is just far more efficent at the same job. And that is with a squad ignoring saturation due to all members being equipable with it.
The opportunity cost on squads with less options for a heavy / special weapons would with those points become a misnomer.