PDA

View Full Version : Weapon point cost discussion



Hawkkf
28-03-2014, 19:02
I am starting this thread as to not derail the IG rumor thread any more than I already have. The debate is over whether all weapons should be pointed the same across codexes or if they should be modified for each codex. The current reason for this debate is the power fist will now cost scions the same amount as it will a marine. I am in the camp that believes that the weapon prices shoudl be the same and that the model using the weapon should be adjusted as they are the variable.

Here are some power fist specific caveats I have to my statement:
1) Stat multipliers are extremely hard to point cost. I believe that this should be the exception and that multipliers should be pointed based on the user as the end weapon is not the same between users.
2) The power fist would be better off with a flat +4S which would allow it to be priced evenly across books.

Non power fist specific caveats:
The point cost of the weapon being replaced should be considered.

For my argument I will use a plamsa gun. The weapon itself is the same whether used by a tactical marine or by an inquisitorial acoltye. The weapon is obviously better used in the hands of the marine who has better stats, armor save vs gets hot, and better resilence to get to use the weapon. The weapon itself is the same though only the user changes. Therefore in my opinion the weapons should be pointed the same but the user should be point costed appropriately.

I understand I am in the minority with my views and I respect other opinions. Please lets keep this thread civil.

Slayer-Fan123
28-03-2014, 19:11
I think the one weapon that has never been worth its cost, no matter the wielder, is the Plasma Pistol.

soullessginger
28-03-2014, 19:35
That use to be the rules in 2nd Ed, but they changed it for third. Personally I like the change for the following reasons:
A. A marine will hit more often with his weapon more than a guardsman and so will be more efficient for the points spent, ergo why would you bother buying a less efficient weapon when you can but Space Marines as Allies.
B. Heavy weapons should cost more for devastators as they are more likely to stand still and shoot than a heavy weapon in a tactical squad, ergo with your suggestions Devestators become more efficient than Tactical Marines, ergo why buy Tact Marines.

Sgt John Keel
28-03-2014, 19:45
Depends on what the objective is. If it's balance, I definitely don't think it should be priced the same regardless of the platform.

A reasonable example is Terminators. Terminators have Relentless, a rule that is not relevant for the basic Terminator since they have Assault weapons, not Salvo/Heavy/Rapid Fire. Thus, to price this potential advantage into the basic Terminator would probably make them too expensive for what they could do, and would ensure that they would always be better served by taking the Salvo/Heavy/Rapid Fire weapon (and also not take the Heavy Flamer), since the extra utility would be lower than the points cost required.

If instead the advantage of the platform's Relentless rule could be priced into the weapon, it is possible to make both the naked Terminator and the Terminator with the special weapon balanced.

Next example: Assume we have two different characters whose statline differs only in that one has WS5 and BS1 and the other WS1 and BS5. Let's assume they are priced identically. Clearly one has much greater utility from a Power Weapon, and the other from a Plasma Pistol. In the interest of balance, it makes no sense that both should cost, say, 50 points when equipped only with a Plasma Pistol. Obviously you could change the costs of the base models, but that would only fix the issue for either the Power Weapon or the Plasma Pistol.

A fairly obvious symptom of not pricing weapons differently can be seen with Blood Angel Assault Squads. I have essentially never seen an Assault Squad armed with Plasma Guns, since the weapon is directly counterproductive to the purpose of the squad. Melta Guns and Flamers are seen much more frequently. Adjusting the cost of the base trooper will never provide an incentive to take Plasma Guns.

Thus, for Plasma Guns to be an option at all, barring any mechanics changes, its price needs to be different than that of the Tactical Squad's, where Plasma Guns are seen much more frequently.

That said, I am not so sure the Plasma Gun should be cheaper for Imperial Guard Infantry Squads than it is for Space Marine Tactical Squads. For one thing, since the base squad is way cheaper, you can have a lot more of them at any given army size.

Hawkkf
28-03-2014, 20:00
For the point about devestators, shouldn't the ability to take more heavy weapons than a tactical squad be considered in the cost for the unit? The point is they can use it more efficiently should be reflected in thier cost. The weapons have not changed, and are as effective as when fired by a tactical squad.

As to the terminator point, the special rule of relentless should be factored in to the unit not the weapon. Many units pay for special rules they don't use. For example if you use the new scions in a taurox you will be paying for the ds and move through cover rules, but will be unlikely to use them. Should the taurox prime be cheaper since it makes the only unit that can use it special rules moot?
Weapon options are always better. Some make a lot more sense than others, such as your point melta vs plasma gun on BA assault squads. Even then I'm sure there will be someone who has been able to make use of it since the weapon is still as good as it always is, just not for that unit.

Lord Damocles
28-03-2014, 20:14
The high price could be in order to allow Fists to be taken by Scions, while encouraging other options over them.

Like how a Malleus Inquisitor pays the same for a Power Fist as they do a Daemon Hammer.

Sgt John Keel
28-03-2014, 20:20
As to the terminator point, the special rule of relentless should be factored in to the unit not the weapon. Many units pay for special rules they don't use. For example if you use the new scions in a taurox you will be paying for the ds and move through cover rules, but will be unlikely to use them. Should the taurox prime be cheaper since it makes the only unit that can use it special rules moot?
Weapon options are always better. Some make a lot more sense than others, such as your point melta vs plasma gun on BA assault squads. Even then I'm sure there will be someone who has been able to make use of it since the weapon is still as good as it always is, just not for that unit.

Well, if the design goal isn't balance, what is it? And yes, I believe the cost of the DS and MTC should be mitigated if you choose to use a transport (for all transports) instead. We've even seen this before where Assault Squads gets free (or a points break on) transports since they lose the Jump rule.

If the points cost for the Taurox Prime factor this in, I do not know, so I cannot say if it should be cheaper than it is.

Mandragola
28-03-2014, 20:20
I think things just have to be in the unit entry, not set for each codex. Even within the same book there is a vast difference in the values of different weapons.

A case in point would be grav guns for marines. Same price for a tactical marine as for a biker, who is relentless and fast. So the biker can go 12" and fire 18" 3 times but the tactical marine can only go 6" and fire 9", twice. So GW have priced grav guns somewhere in between what they are worth for a guy on foot and a guy on a bike, so they are too expensive for guys on foot and too cheap for guys on bikes, so people give them to guys on bikes.

This could potentially be solved with a blanket rule to say salvo/heavy weapons cost double for relentless/SnP units, but it would be simpler to just give the right prices for each unit. It wouldn't take much space either.

For a close combat weapon the difference is as great if not greater. A chapter master obviously gets more value from his power fist than a tactical marine sergeant does. The chapter master is riding around on a bike with 4 wounds, a 2+ save and the shield eternal. The tactical marine is probably dead before he swings in a challenge.

Oddly there are some things that they give out to everyone at different prices. So the same chapter master pays loads of points for terminator armour, which does almost nothing for him as he already has a 2+ save and an iron halo. That does include a power sword and storm bolter, and he gets a discount on terminator weapons... but not other weapons. If you deduct the price of his power sword and storm bolter he's still paying 10 points for the armour, the only effect of which is to make him bulky, prevent him from riding a bike and sweeping opponents. He does get to deep strike though.

They aren't going to change it though. Don't buy power fists for Scions.

AngryAngel
28-03-2014, 20:28
Depends on what the objective is. If it's balance, I definitely don't think it should be priced the same regardless of the platform.

A reasonable example is Terminators. Terminators have Relentless, a rule that is not relevant for the basic Terminator since they have Assault weapons, not Salvo/Heavy/Rapid Fire. Thus, to price this potential advantage into the basic Terminator would probably make them too expensive for what they could do, and would ensure that they would always be better served by taking the Salvo/Heavy/Rapid Fire weapon (and also not take the Heavy Flamer), since the extra utility would be lower than the points cost required.

If instead the advantage of the platform's Relentless rule could be priced into the weapon, it is possible to make both the naked Terminator and the Terminator with the special weapon balanced.

Next example: Assume we have two different characters whose statline differs only in that one has WS5 and BS1 and the other WS1 and BS5. Let's assume they are priced identically. Clearly one has much greater utility from a Power Weapon, and the other from a Plasma Pistol. In the interest of balance, it makes no sense that both should cost, say, 50 points when equipped only with a Plasma Pistol. Obviously you could change the costs of the base models, but that would only fix the issue for either the Power Weapon or the Plasma Pistol.

A fairly obvious symptom of not pricing weapons differently can be seen with Blood Angel Assault Squads. I have essentially never seen an Assault Squad armed with Plasma Guns, since the weapon is directly counterproductive to the purpose of the squad. Melta Guns and Flamers are seen much more frequently. Adjusting the cost of the base trooper will never provide an incentive to take Plasma Guns.

Thus, for Plasma Guns to be an option at all, barring any mechanics changes, its price needs to be different than that of the Tactical Squad's, where Plasma Guns are seen much more frequently.

That said, I am not so sure the Plasma Gun should be cheaper for Imperial Guard Infantry Squads than it is for Space Marine Tactical Squads. For one thing, since the base squad is way cheaper, you can have a lot more of them at any given army size.

The plasma gun is, flamer, melta I've considered priced fine in the guard. The weapons I dislike being up priced, are the CC weapons and plasma pistol. The pistol I believe was at 10 pts, probably bounces up to 15 and becomes even more useless, again. The power weapons, on a guard are more worthless, so were cheaper. The +5 pts for power weapons isn't too bad. However, the + 10 for a power fist hurts a bit more, for something that can't hide in a blob squad, only is taken on a select few small groups of guard, ST's, Vets, Command squads, etc. Saying it is worth the same to a guard and a marine, is silly.

I'm not saying you are saying such, I just quoted your post for the part of the other special weapons. Though I think a line guard does handle the Plasma gun worse then a marine, hits less often and if it over heats, he's most likely dead as opposed to the marine, who is most likely alive.

megatrons2nd
28-03-2014, 21:29
How GW does it who knows. The way I would do it is based off an algorithm for how it effects the overall models ability.

Pariah-Miniatures
29-03-2014, 11:37
Its GW logic, it doesn't have to be reasonable. It would seem more that they may have wanted to blanket the same point values across new books without actually taking in account of how effective it could be used for the army. There isn't a rational reason to take anything other than maybe upgrade to that free bolt pistol. The guys wont last in cc and certainly wont be doing much of anything to hurt anything toe to toe either. So skip all fancy upgrades and save those points for more over priced $ models. GW trickery at its finest.

death2uall
29-03-2014, 13:30
Would you guys like some cheese to go with that whine?

If you don't like the cost of an upgrade, then don't take that upgrade for that model. That should be obvious. It's also why, for example, GW sells IG Meltas in blister packs paired with Plasma guns, because otherwise they wouldn't sell any bloody plasma guns. The way you get around this is by buying Space Marine Melta bits on eBay to glue to your Imperial Guardsmen.

The simple fact is, no matter how much less effective an Imperial Guardsman is with a lascannon than a Space Marine, the IG is going to field more lascannons because their base points cost is a third of a Space Marine's. No matter how many power fists you give to IG, a squad is going to get its ass smeared across the map by a base Space Marine tactical squad, or even a combat team if you don't combine squads. So you don't give IG power fists; you give them lascannons and wipe the board with Space Marine tac squads before they get into Assault range. Simple.

malisteen
29-03-2014, 14:20
The problem with pricing options based on perceived utility to specific models or units is that it can backfire. If an option is better for melee, and so you make it more expensive on melee units, then all you've done is discourage the use of that option in exactly the squads that, thematically, should be most inclined to take it. If you have one character who's Ws5, Bs1 and another who's Bs5, Ws1, then you should want to take just melee weapons on the former, just shooty weapons on the latter. Trying to fiddle with the points of those options until, say, a power weapon is equally worth purchasing for either character just completely undermines the point of making those characters different in the first place, and at worst will result in people always taking the least fluffy options.

An example in practice is 'Veterans of the Long War' in the Chaos Marine codex. thematically it's supposed to represent veteran status. Mechanically it's (theoretically) of greater benefit to melee units than ranged units. Now take a look at bikes and raptors. They're very similar units, similar options, abilities, & costs. The bikes are more points efficient than the raptors to begin with, but that's beside the point here. Here, the issue is that the bikes were considered more of a 'shooty unit', while the raptors were considered an 'assaulty unit', and since vets is an 'assaulty ability' it was made more expensive on the raptors. But while bikes are shootier than raptors, they aren't worse in close combat, so now if you want to specialize a fast attack squad for assault, you just take the bikes, enjoy their discounted melee ability, and be better at everything.

Or compare basic chaos marines to terminators or chosen. Basic chaos marines, again, only pay a single point for vets. It's not a great ability, but it's not bad on them. But because chosen and terminators are considered more assaulty, they have to pay more (2 and 3 points respectively), for vets, and as a result you are strongly discouraged from taking the ability on them! So by trying to fiddle with the points, the designers ended up incentivizing this situation where the common line grunts, who by all rights should tend to be recent renegades and post-heresy chaos marines, are often 'veterans of the long war', while the elite terminators and chosen, who should have been around the longest, are instead raw recruits?

So by trying to fiddle with the points costs of options based on their perceived utility, the designers ended up 1) failing (since some units are just better at everything than others as a result) and 2) creating rules that directly incentivize exactly the opposite of exciting narrative play by making the vets upgrade least appealing on exactly the units that you should most want to put it on, thematically.


And if they had not tried to tweak the points that way, what's the worst that could have happened? If vets were the same points cost on every unit, then yes, it would have been better on elite melee units like chosen and terminators than for basic grunt shooty squads like chaos marines, but if a player chose to make their elites veterans and their troops not veterans, then that's fine! That's exactly what the rules should be encouraging!


So after that example, I'm a big fan of making options the same cost throughout a book, regardless of which unit takes them. Between books? That's another issue. I don't mind options pricing different between books as much, but within a book, if an option is better on unit A than unit B, then unit A is exactly the unit that should be taking that option. If you have one guy with tons of Bs and no Ws, then that guy should be grabbing ranged weapons, and leaving the melee weapons to his Ws having buddy. Again, making both melee and ranged upgrades equally worth taking on both of those models directly undercuts the point of having models specialized in one or the other to begin with.

Ironbone
29-03-2014, 15:33
Both sides ( fixed/non-fixed cost ) probably have good arguments for backup their theories, but in fact, all comes to old saynig - "everthing's depend".

Also, onto that there is problem with costing. GW tend on vast majority of ocasions tend to cost wargear in 5pts, or it's multiplication ( 10, 15, 20, etc. 5x "X" ). Plasma pistol wouldn't be fair priced, if it wolud cost only 5 pts, but on the other hand with 10 pts is overall overpriced. So 7, 8, 9 pts then ?

Lorm
29-03-2014, 15:35
The problem with pricing options based on perceived utility to specific models or units is that it can backfire. If an option is better for melee, and so you make it more expensive on melee units, then all you've done is discourage the use of that option in exactly the squads that, thematically, should be most inclined to take it. If you have one character who's Ws5, Bs1 and another who's Bs5, Ws1, then you should want to take just melee weapons on the former, just shooty weapons on the latter. Trying to fiddle with the points of those options until, say, a power weapon is equally worth purchasing for either character just completely undermines the point of making those characters different in the first place, and at worst will result in people always taking the least fluffy options.

So after that example, I'm a big fan of making options the same cost throughout a book, regardless of which unit takes them. Between books? That's another issue. I don't mind options pricing different between books as much, but within a book, if an option is better on unit A than unit B, then unit A is exactly the unit that should be taking that option. If you have one guy with tons of Bs and no Ws, then that guy should be grabbing ranged weapons, and leaving the melee weapons to his Ws having buddy. Again, making both melee and ranged upgrades equally worth taking on both of those models directly undercuts the point of having models specialized in one or the other to begin with.
So for you an WS 5 model with a power weapon for 15/20 points is less effective or should not be taken, compared to a WS 1 model with the same power weapon for free? Are you drunk? :confused:
Specialized units are better in what they do, but that's not for free of course, non-specialized units with similar equipment are obviously non as powerful and so should cost less, or else remove the options altogether, whats the point of playing CC vanguard veterans when you have terminators? (and in fact as they're costed now they're pretty useless, as honor guard is)

The required result for balance is to have X model with Y weapon with a reasonable effectiveness/point cost, also compared to Z model with same Y weapon, how this is achieved doesn't really matter, but i believe is much easier to give separate weapon costs for some units (as it was in the old codexes if someone remembers...)
Example:
Power weapon: Chaos terminators have them for free, Sergeants and a bunch of other space marines pay 15 and guard sergeants pay 10; the proportion may change considering other rules, edition changes, etc... but it clearly makes sense.

Beppo1234
29-03-2014, 17:02
I was just discussing the other day, how point cost should represent battlefield effectiveness only, and that the idea of using point cost to help fluff be represented in game is a big mistake. ie. rare weapons should cost their effectiveness, not their availability IMO, fluff should be worked out in a different mechanic outside of point cost. Meaning that identical weapons should have the same cost between books and armies.

A.T.
29-03-2014, 17:53
I was just discussing the other day, how point cost should represent battlefield effectiveness only / Meaning that identical weapons should have the same cost between books and armies.But identical weapons do not have the same effectiveness between books and armies.
For instance a WS3 S3 I3 sister of battle pays the same as an WS4 S4 I4 space marine for a power sword but has a fraction of the combat ability.

The two schools of thought when balancing that are going to be either a)the weapons for the less capable troops should be cheaper, or b)the higher cost is intentionally weakening the force's cc capabilities in order to balance out additional strengths elsewhere.

Neither approach to weapon costing is wrong, though the cheaper weapons could be described as a quick fix while balancing the books requires GW to actually balance the books...

Beppo1234
29-03-2014, 18:14
But identical weapons do not have the same effectiveness between books and armies.
For instance a WS3 S3 I3 sister of battle pays the same as an WS4 S4 I4 space marine for a power sword but has a fraction of the combat ability.

The two schools of thought when balancing that are going to be either a)the weapons for the less capable troops should be cheaper, or b)the higher cost is intentionally weakening the force's cc capabilities in order to balance out additional strengths elsewhere.

Neither approach to weapon costing is wrong, though the cheaper weapons could be described as a quick fix while balancing the books requires GW to actually balance the books...

well, if the weapon and the marine and the sister are pointed properly by effectiveness only, then the marine's point cost will account for the additional advantage gained over the sister with identical weapons but different stats. They shouldn't be changing the point cost of the weapon, it is not more or less effective. The user is more or less effective, and the points representing that should be accounted to the user, not the weapon.

malisteen
29-03-2014, 18:23
So for you an WS 5 model with a power weapon for 15/20 points is less effective or should not be taken, compared to a WS 1 model with the same power weapon for free? Are you drunk? :confused:

I'm saying if it's a WS1 model that isn't supposed to be a melee combatant, why are you trying to rebalance things to make melee upgrades equally appealing for that model as they are for models that are meant to be in melee? If a character is terrible in melee, why are you trying to argue that power weapons should ever be a decent investment for it?

And since things in this game are rarely 100% one way or the other, trying to fiddle with utility based points on options this way is very likely to have negative effects, as with the vets option in CSMs. They tried to balance a melee upgrade so that it costs more on melee specialists, and ended up with an ability that was heavily disincentivized for exatly the units that were supposed to want it because it costs too much on them.

No I don't think every weapon should be priced the same on every model, squad options at different prices than character options, or a gun being a different price for tau than for space marines or orks, that's fine. But if you're going to give devastator squads free power weapons on their champs 'because they're worth less on a shooting unit' while charging assault squad champs an arm and a leg? Then you'll end up with space marine armies that look like they're run by idiots, because all their shooting units have tricked out melee champs, but all their assaulty champs are naked. If the dev's are hanging back from the fight, while the assault units are diving in, then why would the points encourage you to take the chapter's supply of power weapons and give them to the devastator sergeants and not the assault squad sergeants?

It is ok for a given option to be a better purchase for one unit than another while still being available to both. The way the game works, that's always going to be the case, and if you try and fight it you're too likely to create a situation where that's still true, only the unit that the option is the better choice for isn't the one that makes sense thematically. Again, as with CSMs, where you see hardened 10,000 year old herey era vet line grunts, while the elite specialists with all the best weapons and gear are the raw recruits corrupted yesterday.

Voss
29-03-2014, 18:38
well, if the weapon and the marine and the sister are pointed properly by effectiveness only, then the marine's point cost will account for the additional advantage gained over the sister with identical weapons but different stats. They shouldn't be changing the point cost of the weapon, it is not more or less effective. The user is more or less effective, and the points representing that should be accounted to the user, not the weapon.

Then they need to change the way points are done period, since 3rd+ edition point costs are too close together to reflect that. It worked somewhat in 2nd when a WS 5 Grey Hunter was 40 odd points, but since the line between Storm Trooper, Sister, Scout and Space Marine is maybe 4 points total, the approach you're advocating isn't viable at all. With the way the base cost of models works now, the only thing to effectively tweak is the cost of the weapon.

Which is actually viable if you just consider the total cost of a model rather than worrying about whether points are for the model or the weapon. Points are points, and an SM sergeant with a power fist is an order of magnitude better than a guard sergeant with a power fist.

A.T.
29-03-2014, 18:44
well, if the weapon and the marine and the sister are pointed properly by effectiveness only, then the marine's point cost will account for the additional advantage gained over the sister with identical weapons but different stats. They shouldn't be changing the point cost of the weapon, it is not more or less effective. The user is more or less effective, and the points representing that should be accounted to the user, not the weapon.That doesn't work.

For instance - you have unit X which costs 10 points per model (lets call this 'rating=1'), and unit Y that costs 20 points per model, and is twice as effective ('rating=2').
For an additional 10 points per model each can further double their effectiveness rating.

10 of unit Y with upgraded weapons will therefore cost 300 points, and have a total rating of 40 (10x2x2)
15 of unit X with upgraded weapons will cost the same amount, but only have a rating of 30 (15x1x2)

As you can see a fixed cost upgrade results in an ever widening gap, even for units that started at parity - at least for force multipliers.


Of course it's not quite that simple as there is such a thing as overkill ... but nobody said balancing was simple :p

Slayer-Fan123
29-03-2014, 18:46
Both sides ( fixed/non-fixed cost ) probably have good arguments for backup their theories, but in fact, all comes to old saynig - "everthing's depend".

Also, onto that there is problem with costing. GW tend on vast majority of ocasions tend to cost wargear in 5pts, or it's multiplication ( 10, 15, 20, etc. 5x "X" ). Plasma pistol wouldn't be fair priced, if it wolud cost only 5 pts, but on the other hand with 10 pts is overall overpriced. So 7, 8, 9 pts then ?
I actually think 10 points is reasonable for the Plasma Pistol, but that's just me.

A.T.
29-03-2014, 18:57
I actually think 10 points is reasonable for the Plasma Pistol, but that's just me.There was some variation in the past based on the close combat ability of the wielder - an extra 5 points on all pistol costs for units that would benefit more from the extra attack they got from carrying 2 pistol/cc weapons.

Beppo1234
29-03-2014, 18:59
Then they need to change the way points are done period, since 3rd+ edition point costs are too close together to reflect that. It worked somewhat in 2nd when a WS 5 Grey Hunter was 40 odd points, but since the line between Storm Trooper, Sister, Scout and Space Marine is maybe 4 points total, the approach you're advocating isn't viable at all. With the way the base cost of models works now, the only thing to effectively tweak is the cost of the weapon.

Which is actually viable if you just consider the total cost of a model rather than worrying about whether points are for the model or the weapon. Points are points, and an SM sergeant with a power fist is an order of magnitude better than a guard sergeant with a power fist.

well, that's the problem isn't it, that they are trying to represent too much, with too few points. I never really understood why they trimmed the point system down by 50% at 3rd edition. It seems to be the route of the problem.

also, tweaking the point cost of an inanimate object, so that its cost represents the synergy between the user and the weapon, just seems stupid to me, when you could just point the user better and give access to universal point cost weapons.

I guess I'm advocating a revamp to the whole point system, not just weapons, but all models.

Grocklock
29-03-2014, 19:03
Points cost for efficantcty is a good idea why does an IG commander pay the same points for a power fist as an Ork warboss. Even though a power fist in the hands of a warboss is far better.

There was also a serjestion earlyer to have power fists give a standard +4S. Which is great of your IG or marines as it is either a boost or the same but my warboss takes a hit. Not a fan.

There was talk about using points to demonstright rateity in an item.
Which is a good way of doing it. Much better then the 0-1 choices.

Voss
29-03-2014, 19:07
well, that's the problem isn't it, that they are trying to represent too much, with too few points. I never really understood why they trimmed the point system down by 50% at 3rd edition. It seems to be the route of the problem.

also, tweaking the point cost of an inanimate object, so that its cost represents the synergy between the user and the weapon, just seems stupid to me, when you could just point the user better and give access to universal point cost weapons.

I guess I'm advocating a revamp to the whole point system, not just weapons, but all models.
I'm not sure why it seems stupid though. The model (which includes vehicles as well as troopers) is just as inanimate as the weapon, and both are simply a collection of stats. Point costs are game concepts, and have nothing to do with people or realism in any way.

The crux of the matter is that getting GW to go back to large point costs per model is absurdly unlikely. Getting them to cost upgrades effectively is also unlikely, but more reasonable.

Beppo1234
29-03-2014, 19:39
The crux of the matter is that getting GW to go back to large point costs per model is absurdly unlikely. Getting them to cost upgrades effectively is also unlikely, but more reasonable.

how did GW deal with the point cost transition during 2nd-3rd change over? I was around, but I just can't for the life of me remember how it changed over. I know marine dropped exactly 50% in cost from 300 for a tactical squad to 150. How was that dealt with as far as adjusting everything else.

if both are as unlikely to occur, then both must be relatively equal in reasonability. Sure, one is a fix, the other is an overhaul, making the fix more likely, but as you say, getting GW to do it effectively is more the problem in that realm.

Bloodknight
30-03-2014, 00:20
How was that dealt with as far as adjusting everything else.


Guardsmen went from 10 to 5 points. Heavy weapons got more expensive in general. Vehicles in all armies stayed roughly in the same ballpark as in 2nd edition, but were a lot less dangerous than they used to be; they had a lot more firepower and mobility in 2nd edition. Upgrades like Power Weapons and Power Fists went up a lot; Weapons to 15 from 6 (2nd ed. power sword, which provided everyone with S5 and a -3 save modifier), Fists to 25 from 10 (used to be S8 -5). But 3rd edition's pricing structure did not work anyway, it overrated mobility heavily, leading to useless bikers and assault units because they were way too expensive. 10 assault marines at 300 points plus upgrades vs 150 for a tactical squad + 50 for a rhino that made them invulnerable to most weapons for a time was a much better deal. 35 point Reaver Jetbikes with a 5+ save, 1 attack and T4...

Voss
30-03-2014, 03:40
how did GW deal with the point cost transition during 2nd-3rd change over? I was around, but I just can't for the life of me remember how it changed over. I know marine dropped exactly 50% in cost from 300 for a tactical squad to 150. How was that dealt with as far as adjusting everything else.

if both are as unlikely to occur, then both must be relatively equal in reasonability. Sure, one is a fix, the other is an overhaul, making the fix more likely, but as you say, getting GW to do it effectively is more the problem in that realm.
The model based change is more unlikely simply because it means a '2000 point army' is suddenly smaller, which translates directly into less sales. Similarly, if SM and whatever get the current costs for equipment and horde armies get discounts for being rubbish, marine armies stay roughly the same, and horde armies have more room for more models, which is status quo or more sales. I don't personally see GW taking either option (and instead ignoring the issue entirely), but of the two unlikely options, one is an order of magnitude less likely, because it sells less models. There isn't inherent equability in reasonability here.

Beppo1234
30-03-2014, 12:44
The model based change is more unlikely simply because it means a '2000 point army' is suddenly smaller, which translates directly into less sales. Similarly, if SM and whatever get the current costs for equipment and horde armies get discounts for being rubbish, marine armies stay roughly the same, and horde armies have more room for more models, which is status quo or more sales. I don't personally see GW taking either option (and instead ignoring the issue entirely), but of the two unlikely options, one is an order of magnitude less likely, because it sells less models. There isn't inherent equability in reasonability here.

yeah, but the number they use is irrelevant right. Only the number of increments matter. So if points double, all that happens as the standard game become labelled 4000 points. There is nothing wrong or difficult about that.

wyvirn
30-03-2014, 17:12
The problem with a single point cost is that each codex will find the 'best' one or two units/models that will be amazing with the weapon and that will be the one thing that gets spammed. Variable point costs encourage variety.

Ssilmath
30-03-2014, 17:21
The problem with a single point cost is that each codex will find the 'best' one or two units/models that will be amazing with the weapon and that will be the one thing that gets spammed. Variable point costs encourage variety.

Not sure how variable points costs will prevent people from finding the best one or two options for that weapon and spamming them.

Chem-Dog
30-03-2014, 18:14
Simply put. To make universal costing viable all variable weaponry would have to be replaced with set stats across their profile. No more Sx2, no More S+1 and so on (though AS USER would still be fine for the default generic Melee attack).
No great hardship in my view, the variable offered by such weapons are minuscule when viewed from within a single Codex and nigh on pointless in any broader view.
Make Powerfists S8 Ap2 Unwieldy, if you don't want Guardsmen and whatnot swinging S8 fists or you want your S5 guy to get extra damage potential over and above S8 make them use something else with a similar name (IG Power Gauntlet, Eldar Power Glove, Wrecker fists and so on) but more appropriate profile. We already have multiple names for the same piece of gear in different armies (Power Klaw, Bloodfists and so on) and GW are quite happy to give us a "X Pattern whatever" when they feel a weapon should be distinct (better) than the existing example, looking at Scout Shotguns and grenade launchers particularly here.

Best bit is you could roll out the changes in the very next Codex without grotesquely distorting any balance that might exist because you're basically replacing an almost redundant calculation with a set value.

The only hiccup I can see currently is the rather nebulous status of Power Weapons. Even then it's a simple matter to come to a decision as to what the Strength Value of each is and stick to it or come up with a new name for different versions. Crozius Arcanum could be Distinct from a Power Maul, for example.

Slayer-Fan123
30-03-2014, 19:53
Simply put. To make universal costing viable all variable weaponry would have to be replaced with set stats across their profile. No more Sx2, no More S+1 and so on (though AS USER would still be fine for the default generic Melee attack).
No great hardship in my view, the variable offered by such weapons are minuscule when viewed from within a single Codex and nigh on pointless in any broader view.
Make Powerfists S8 Ap2 Unwieldy, if you don't want Guardsmen and whatnot swinging S8 fists or you want your S5 guy to get extra damage potential over and above S8 make them use something else with a similar name (IG Power Gauntlet, Eldar Power Glove, Wrecker fists and so on) but more appropriate profile. We already have multiple names for the same piece of gear in different armies (Power Klaw, Bloodfists and so on) and GW are quite happy to give us a "X Pattern whatever" when they feel a weapon should be distinct (better) than the existing example, looking at Scout Shotguns and grenade launchers particularly here.

Best bit is you could roll out the changes in the very next Codex without grotesquely distorting any balance that might exist because you're basically replacing an almost redundant calculation with a set value.

The only hiccup I can see currently is the rather nebulous status of Power Weapons. Even then it's a simple matter to come to a decision as to what the Strength Value of each is and stick to it or come up with a new name for different versions. Crozius Arcanum could be Distinct from a Power Maul, for example.
I don't agree with making Power Fists a simple S8 AP2. A Space Marine is already stronger in the first place, and would therefore be getting more out of it than a Guardsman in the first place. If they were both to wear it, there's not reason they should be equal.

Muad'Dib
30-03-2014, 21:06
Not sure how variable points costs will prevent people from finding the best one or two options for that weapon and spamming them.
...
With variable point costs you can set cost (or at least try to) of each individual model-weapon combination so that it will be worth using - even if only in very specific scenarios. With fixed weapon costs, you can't do this.

Bloodknight
30-03-2014, 22:04
. A Space Marine is already stronger in the first place, and would therefore be getting more out of it than a Guardsman in the first place

Or not because the Power Fist's power field makes *frazzle* with the opponent and the wielder doesn't make a difference to it. Just as valid a view, and with precedence (in 2nd edition close combat weapons all had a profile of their own. Chainswords were S4, ASM -1, for example, which an S5 Space Marine Hero or Mighty Hero could replace with his own S with -2 ASM. Yes, that means that all he got out of the sword was a Parry, but since that was pretty awesome it didn't matter much. Power Swords were S5 -3, Power Axes S5 -2 if wielded in one hand, S6 -3 with two hands, Power Fists and Lightning Claws (Power Fist with double Parry) S8 -5 etc; you could also use pistols with their statline in close combat, which I really liked. Flame Pistol ;).

Poseidal
30-03-2014, 22:22
A power fist/klaw uses it's own servo motors + power field; the strength of the bearer shouldn't influence it at all. It's actually bizarre it uses the strength of the model at all.

Same with a Thunder Hammer, which is in effect a huge capacitor for the power field and unleashes it on contact.

Maybe the devices are heavy, so a thunder hammer should be S8, models with less than 4 for strength requires two hands.

Baaltor
30-03-2014, 23:28
A power fist/klaw uses it's own servo motors + power field; the strength of the bearer shouldn't influence it at all. It's actually bizarre it uses the strength of the model at all.


Yeah, but the guard's version is hardly bigger than the marine's power armoured fist, whereas the marine's power glove is the weight of the entire guardsman himself. The bigger guy can carry a bigger power glove.

Isn't this a parodox? If you pay for a model to have a better statline, why do you need to pay again when it gets an upgrade that directly or indirectly benefits from that statline? And even if that's the case, should we also have an increasing cost factor for each upgrade you give a model? Like if you take a wolf tooth necklace, all melee upgrades are now +5 points?

Yes, a guardsmen's got lower BS than a marine, but for the cost of marine with a melta you're getting three guardsmen with a melta. So yeah, the marine'll hit more, but he doesn't keep the anti infantry power/range, and he lacks the wounds. Should we discount his melta now? And the heavy weapons squad with cost upped heavy weapons, the weapons cost more because they'll see more use, but how much do you discount:

Weapons: Pistol and boltgun won't see much use due to extreme range, and target choice
Armour and T: Don't need it for small arms due to range, and the firepower leveled at the devastators will pierce armour more than before
Strength and I: Not fighting in CC as much

The high cost of marines is itself a penalty, and doesn't need to be compounded with increased weapons costs. They already pay for a wad of things they don't use in this role, which makes them very inefficient already.

megatrons2nd
31-03-2014, 00:26
Don't look at it as the "weapon" costs the upgrade cost. Look at it as the weapon upgrade cost is the total effectiveness upgrade cost for the model. Thus the variable cost between codeciees is do to the difference in capabilities of the models in question.

Greyhound
31-03-2014, 01:05
There's also the duration of the unit carrying the gun.

Assume two units with equal stats, equal guns, but one unit has Armour saves 6+, the other has 2+, with 3++.
The more durable unit can keep that gun on the board a lot longer than the other one.

Baaltor
31-03-2014, 05:17
But the 6+ save guy's probably coming in number like 10 men more the 2+/3++'s 1 man.

Vipoid
31-03-2014, 09:02
Simply put. To make universal costing viable all variable weaponry would have to be replaced with set stats across their profile. No more Sx2, no More S+1 and so on (though AS USER would still be fine for the default generic Melee attack).
No great hardship in my view, the variable offered by such weapons are minuscule when viewed from within a single Codex and nigh on pointless in any broader view.
Make Powerfists S8 Ap2 Unwieldy

With your powerfist example though, doesn't that create the exact same issue? Currently, Marines benefit more than guardsmen because they have higher starting strength. However, if PFs just become S8, the guardmen are now getting much more benefit than marines - since they're getting +5S, whilst marines are only getting +4S.

It seems like this is just reversing the problem, rather than fixing it - since one unit is still getting a greater benefit for the same cost.

Poseidal
31-03-2014, 10:11
With your powerfist example though, doesn't that create the exact same issue? Currently, Marines benefit more than guardsmen because they have higher starting strength. However, if PFs just become S8, the guardmen are now getting much more benefit than marines - since they're getting +5S, whilst marines are only getting +4S.

It seems like this is just reversing the problem, rather than fixing it - since one unit is still getting a greater benefit for the same cost.

If it were a set 25 points, but was static S8, the Guardsman with it would still be worse, even having more benefit from it (due to worse weaponskill, durability etc). But as he gains more from it, and is at lower base cost the price of the fist being the same for both is more 'roughly' equal, and I would say fairer.

Multiplicative bonuses hide the fact that what you are doing isn't actually 'based' off their stats like some RPG, but is the costing between a S6 and S8 power weapon. The Marine pays for his S4, but that benefit is costed (in theory) in comparison to S3 for unarmed attacks - the Power Fist comparison should therefore be between S6 and S8 weapons as there is a bigger difference between the two.

Tarax
31-03-2014, 10:23
Some would say that the cost of a weapon reflects its rarity. But that is not the case. Even if an effective weapon would cost 5 or 10 points more than a similar (or the same) weapon in another codex, people would still take them in bulk.
The rarity of a weapon (or unit or whatever) should be reflected in the number that can be taken in an army. Eg, an IG army can take upto 10 weapons from this list, with no more than 3 of each (list: Power Fist, Plasma Cannon, Multi-Melta, Plasma Gun, Meltagun, ...).

The cost of a weapon should be the same acroos the board. The cost of the model/wielder should reflect its effectiveness with a weapon (be it WS, BS, etc).
Sgt John Keel mentions Terminators and Relentless. While most Terminators don't use Relentless, they could include the cost of that rule into the weapon, ie a Missile Launcher costs 5 points more for a Terminator than it would a Tactical Marine, but he becomes Relentless.

Stats, basic equipment and special rules should be reflected in the points cost of a model.

But in the end, there will always be complaints. ;)

Tarax
31-03-2014, 10:27
With your powerfist example though, doesn't that create the exact same issue? Currently, Marines benefit more than guardsmen because they have higher starting strength. However, if PFs just become S8, the guardmen are now getting much more benefit than marines - since they're getting +5S, whilst marines are only getting +4S.

It seems like this is just reversing the problem, rather than fixing it - since one unit is still getting a greater benefit for the same cost.

Just coming into the discussion. Has someone already mentioned the effect double strength has in Instant Death? Which makes quite a difference in effect of the weapon. Also its effect on vehicles. Just thought I mention that.

Greyhound
31-03-2014, 10:30
But the 6+ save guy's probably coming in number like 10 men more the 2+/3++'s 1 man.

Yes but the cost was calculated for his most simple gun, take this example:
an Xenos is worth 6 points, a space marine 18. The marine survives 3 times more, so you average three xenos dead, for one dead marine. That's fair.
Now to make things fair you need to give the space marine three times more firepower, so either you give him three times the accuracy, the strength or the longer range, to make sure he can equate three times the firepower of those xenos and you have nearly match their point for efficiency.
Actually it's not - the space marine is better off since he is still as awesome as before after making his first save, the xenos slowly lose power over time.

Anyway now you give both 1 of the xenos and the space marine a rocket launcher. Either the xenos is three times less accurate and they need a cost reduction to reflect that, or they are equally accurate and you need to make sure the rules allow the wounds to go on the "buffer" xenos, before the rocket launcher-xenos dies. Trouble is in 6th you can snipe that xenos, so units with less resilience should have a lower weapon cost.

Poseidal
31-03-2014, 10:34
The cost of a weapon should be the same acroos the board. The cost of the model/wielder should reflect its effectiveness with a weapon (be it WS, BS, etc).



Doesn't work with multiplicative weapons like power fists. It doesn't even really work that well with models with multiple attacks.

The models who 'pay' for the extra strength and weaponskill immediately gain the benefit unarmed. The power fist with it's multiplier if costed the same gains the higher stat model more, on top of the benefit he paid for in effect giving him much more 'value' out of the power fist if it were costed the same.

The same goes for attacks. A model who has more attacks - does he 'pay' for it on base costs, as the extra attack is better than a model without it even with both unarmed? Therefore, a power weapon on him, if costed the same can end up twice as good but he's already (in theory) paid for the extra benefit without the power weapon.

Range weapons are somewhat different, as you get no benefit from BS with no weapon.

Baaltor
31-03-2014, 22:01
Yes but the cost was calculated for his most simple gun

The thing is I believe this is false. And even if it is correct, I think it's an objectively wrong idea to cost a unit to his equipment.

Greyhound
31-03-2014, 22:09
The thing is I believe this is false. And even if it is correct, I think it's an objectively wrong idea to cost a unit to his equipment.

So you are suggesting that each spacemarine already has the cost of weapon upgrades included in his base cost? Essentially you say that every space marine pays a power fist tax wether they have one or not?

Ssilmath
31-03-2014, 22:20
Here's the thing. A 5 Point power sword still isn't as valuable to a Tactical Squad Sergeant as a 15 point Power Sword would be to an Assault Marine Sergeant to most people. However, if a person likes to play very aggressively with their Tactical Squads (Like me) then that Power Sword suddenly gets more valuable. So how do you assign points to something based on different playstyles? How many points is a Power Axe worth on a a Stormtrooper Sergeant that will spend most of the game in a Chimera, and how many points is it worth on a squad that is supposed to deep strike in close to enemy elements? Is a power weapon on an IG Sergeant worth 5 points (rarely if ever used in a gunline) or ten points (Often used in a melee blob squad?)

Vipoid
31-03-2014, 22:52
The other aspect for some armies is 'sergeant costs'.

e.g. With my DE, if I want a blast pistol or special CCW in one of my squads, I have to pay 15pts for the gun plus another 10pts for the sergeant to let me take the weapon at all.

Sgt John Keel
31-03-2014, 23:21
And if they had not tried to tweak the points that way, what's the worst that could have happened? If vets were the same points cost on every unit, then yes, it would have been better on elite melee units like chosen and terminators than for basic grunt shooty squads like chaos marines, but if a player chose to make their elites veterans and their troops not veterans, then that's fine! That's exactly what the rules should be encouraging!

Isn't the worst that could've happened that everyone would've always have taken VotLW on all units or that everyone would've never taken VotLW on any unit? Also, are there really no cases of this pricing strategy backfiring?


So after that example, I'm a big fan of making options the same cost throughout a book, regardless of which unit takes them. Between books? That's another issue. I don't mind options pricing different between books as much, but within a book, if an option is better on unit A than unit B, then unit A is exactly the unit that should be taking that option. If you have one guy with tons of Bs and no Ws, then that guy should be grabbing ranged weapons, and leaving the melee weapons to his Ws having buddy. Again, making both melee and ranged upgrades equally worth taking on both of those models directly undercuts the point of having models specialized in one or the other to begin with.

The game is more complex than that, you'll always have to take more than one thing into consideration when balancing. There's plenty of opportunity to ensure that close combat units remain focussed on close combat while still making their ranged upgrades viable, and vice versa. If "free" Power Weapons makes Devastators the assault unit of choice for Space Marine players, one option is to make the heavy weapon upgrades mandatory. (Or maybe it's a wake-up call that Assault Marines are priced abysmally or that they simply don't work as designed.)

I think there's also an issue where the value of an item depends a lot on how many you can take. Having an option of taking exactly one item that compromises the utility of the rest of the squad is often useless (say, having the option of taking one bolter for an Assault Squad is virtually never going to be used, and, I'm not sure of this since it is somewhat less terrible, do people really take the Dragon's Breath for the Fire Dragon Exarch ever?) while taking many eventually cross a threshold.

As an example, I simulated the number of Vanguard Veterans with Storm Shields and Power Fists that were optimal against 5 Wraithguard with D-scythes (that is, that could survive the Overwatch and deal the necessary damage). In about 95 % of the cases, you need four Storm Shields to soak the damage (this means that only the Vanguard with Storm Shields die and Veterans with Power Fists survive). If you only could take one or two Storm Shields, you might as well take none, the squad will be reduced to a non-useful number of Power Fists in the vast majority of cases anyway. Clearly the value of four Storm Shields is much, much greater than double the value of only two. (Note: This is obviously valid for this specific case only.) Balancing needs to take more cases into account, of course, this serves only as an example.

Lorm
31-03-2014, 23:31
Here's the thing. A 5 Point power sword still isn't as valuable to a Tactical Squad Sergeant as a 15 point Power Sword would be to an Assault Marine Sergeant to most people. However, if a person likes to play very aggressively with their Tactical Squads (Like me) then that Power Sword suddenly gets more valuable. So how do you assign points to something based on different playstyles? How many points is a Power Axe worth on a a Stormtrooper Sergeant that will spend most of the game in a Chimera, and how many points is it worth on a squad that is supposed to deep strike in close to enemy elements? Is a power weapon on an IG Sergeant worth 5 points (rarely if ever used in a gunline) or ten points (Often used in a melee blob squad?)
You pay for the profile! A marine sergeant is same profile in an assault or in a tactical squad, so you just pay the same for the same weapon; in case you have actually different profiles or very powerful close combat rules, IMO you should pay more for CC weapons.

Point costs for weapons based on profiles were already there since a looooong time, in the now old imperial guard codex sergeants have power weapons for 10 points... and i haven't seen many close combat platoons anyway...
Should they be costed more? NO, else nobody would EVER buy them, thus making them useless.
Should they be costed less? NO, else, if the cost was too low, everybody would spam them, just because they can and it provides something useful.
Should every power weapon cost 10 points, for example, and everyone who can have it pay a "tax"? NO, because then you would have space marine sergeants that cost 5 more points for no reasons, if they don't take it.

There was a similar argument for warhammer fantasy, someone argued that the cost for magic and other buffs should be placed on unit that COULD receive it, rather than on models that provide buffs and magic (wizards and priest for example); but that is VERY BAD design, since if you don't take priests and go for shooting wizards, or you don't take heroes for every unit, or your heroes get sniped to death, then you are paying extra points for absolutely nothing.

PS: IMO VotLW is not a good example, it's not just a CC boost, but also a Ld boost, and i believe it's just badly priced on terminators and chosen (or on basic chaos marines)

Slayer-Fan123
01-04-2014, 03:13
A power fist/klaw uses it's own servo motors + power field; the strength of the bearer shouldn't influence it at all. It's actually bizarre it uses the strength of the model at all.

The power field could be seen as what's causing the AP2. For the Sx2, that's the servo motors? I'm not too good on fluff, but I look at it like this: My 10 year old brother could cut off sombody's limb with a chainsaw just as well as me, as a chainsaw causes the same kinda damage no matter what. I'm an adult and much stronger, and therefore I'm swinging it at a higher strength.
So therefore if we both acquired Power Fists somehow, we'd both disintegrate people to bits, but I'm doing it better simply because I'm stronger in the first place.

Going further into this, there's no reason why those weapons should be cheaper for more inefficient models, as Ssilmath pointed out. I'd buy 5 point power weapons on my non-melee dedicated Space Marines because I'm VERY aggressive when using them, usually in a Drop Pod list.

Poseidal
01-04-2014, 09:27
Power Fists are crushing weapons. Literally no strength is needed by the bearer to inflict the 'damage', just enough strength to carry and move it.

Although punches are being used to depict it, using it this way either would be less effective than a power sword or axe due to the power field being more dispersed over a larger area than on a blade, or have to rely on a 'capacitor' system that releases it on contact similar to Thunder hammers which again should require no strength from the wielder other than movement and activation energy (which doesn't contribute to the damage).

Lorm
01-04-2014, 09:36
Going further into this, there's no reason why those weapons should be cheaper for more inefficient models, as Ssilmath pointed out. I'd buy 5 point power weapons on my non-melee dedicated Space Marines because I'm VERY aggressive when using them, usually in a Drop Pod list.
A sergeant in a tactical squad is NOT inefficient, in fact he's identical to a sergeant in an assault squad, in fact you can still use him in close combat.
If he had any difference in his profile or special rules, it would be a whole different situation. (compare the space marine sergeant and the imperial guard one)
Making best use of equipment is the "duty" of the player and should not alter equipment cost in first place.
Only the actual effectiveness in the proper field should be accounted and, IMO, the cost should then be adjusted for each user, since for example if you have furious charge and countercharge that power weapon is suddenly much more effective, while the same model with those rules, but without the power weapon, is not that scary, since he just make a +1 Strength regular attack; think about a squad of Space Wolves, with or without power weapons, then compare them to a squad of regular marines, again with or without power weapons, then ask yourself: "should power weapons cost the same for everyone?"

Baaltor
01-04-2014, 10:54
So you are suggesting that each spacemarine already has the cost of weapon upgrades included in his base cost? Essentially you say that every space marine pays a power fist tax wether they have one or not?

I'm not sure how you could get that, but no I'm not saying that. I'm saying the idea that weapon upgrade 'tax' is a bad idea.



Making best use of equipment is the "duty" of the player and should not alter equipment cost in first place.


I'd strongly agree with this idea. If I'm going to make a foolishly inefficient investment, I don't want to be mollycoddled so that it's equally efficient as if I investmented wisely. There's a reason why power weapons go to vets and thunderhammers go to terminators in fluff; the guys who make the best use of these things get them.


Power Fists are crushing weapons. Literally no strength is needed by the bearer to inflict the 'damage', just enough strength to carry and move it.


Emphasis my own. A 400 pound marine in powered armour is moving around a power fist that weighs around 400+ pounds.

Chem-Dog
01-04-2014, 16:32
I don't agree with making Power Fists a simple S8 AP2. A Space Marine is already stronger in the first place, and would therefore be getting more out of it than a Guardsman in the first place. If they were both to wear it, there's not reason they should be equal.

Which is why I've suggested giving lesser models a differently named but functionally similar weapon. If you don't wanna give Guardsmen a S8 Powerfist, give them a S6 Macharius Pattern Power Gauntlet.

My argument is more about the actual redundancy of stat modified weapons, nobody in a marine list is S5 or S3, so doubling the universal S4 is ultimately pointless (as you can't stack strength bonuses before the multiplier), across different codexes it's the same, when it's not it's a differently named item. In the few codexes where such weapons can be applied to sufficiently different model, you can bet their access to those weapons is strictly controlled or comes with caveats.

csm
01-04-2014, 16:47
Going back to the original question...

Weapon costs are different already in some cases are they not?

I know in terms of "internal balance" (or lack of), my chaos terminators pay 7 points for a power fist.

That makes a standard terminator with powerfist 38 points.

What about chosen? Chosen pay 25 points if I remember correctly. That makes a standard chosen model 42 points.

So, to compare...

TERMINATOR (38 points)
2+ armour save
5+ in save
Deep Strike
Powerfist
Twin-Linked Bolter
Cannot sweep

CHOSEN (42 points)
3+ armour save
No Inv Save
Powerfist
Cannot Deep Strike
Bolter/Bolt Pistol
Can sweep

Does this make sense? Not at all. But, it shows that for some reason some units pay (much) less for the same weapon.

To me this means unless guard gave powerfists to a "tougher" unit (like ogryns), I doubt they would pay much less for it. GW has weird balance issues.

Baaltor
01-04-2014, 17:44
And that power fisted CSM Terminator is STILL inferior across the board to the Loyalist counterpart, which ITSELF has widely been considered 'bad' for two editions now.

Sephillion
01-04-2014, 17:45
If you want balance, points definitely shouldn’t be the same across factions (heck, even across units!). For instance, a S3 model with a power fist doesn’t get the same advantages as someone with S4. Also, with the current Unwieldy rule, a model with an Ini of 2 suffers almost no penalty, while a character with an Ini of 4 or more suffers a considerable penalty. Those are all factors to take into account if you want to balance the game. Let’s imagine for instance that they add a powerfist or its equivalent to an Archon’s wargear list next DE Codex (unlikely…). If priced at the same value as a Marine PF, we are looking at the characters who pay the same points for upgrade, but one loses 3 pts of ini and gains 4 points of Strength, the other loses 5 points of ini and gains only 3 points of strength… For that reason, pricing a weapon the same across all armies and units isn’t balance – it’s designer’s laziness or short-sightedness.

(I’m not familiar enough with Imperial Guards, Orks and such to provide a better example, hopefully it gets the point across despite Archons not using PF or equivalents!)

To a lesser degree, the same can be said of some weapons in a given codex – a Heavy weapon on a regular infantry shouldn’t cost too much because the model isn’t Relentless. A Terminator or Biker gets to move and use it.

In both case, however, there may be more to consider than just balance and the effect of the weapon. It’s possible that fluff or wanting to limit the availability or appeal of some weapons influence the cost. So pricing the Power fist on the Scions the same as for the SM may stem from something else, other than just “Power Fists are worth X pts across all armies” – maybe to allow diversity, to give the option of a heavy weapon to Scions, while making it clear that it’s not the best choice, or that it should be limited to some particular situations.

Example of adequately priced weapons: heavy weapons for tactical units. They may not use them as effectively as more specialized units, but they’re tacticals. They’re not supposed to be drenched in heavy weapons. There are devastators and termies for that. Example of badly priced weapons: Chosen Power weapons. Buy one, get a Chosen that is MORE expensive than a Termies without all the perks and only marginal advantages.

Baaltor
01-04-2014, 20:10
If you want balance, points definitely shouldn’t be the same across factions (heck, even across units!). For instance, a S3 model with a power fist doesn’t get the same advantages as someone with S4. Also, with the current Unwieldy rule, a model with an Ini of 2 suffers almost no penalty, while a character with an Ini of 4 or more suffers a considerable penalty. Those are all factors to take into account if you want to balance the game. Let’s imagine for instance that they add a powerfist or its equivalent to an Archon’s wargear list next DE Codex (unlikely…). If priced at the same value as a Marine PF, we are looking at the characters who pay the same points for upgrade, but one loses 3 pts of ini and gains 4 points of Strength, the other loses 5 points of ini and gains only 3 points of strength… For that reason, pricing a weapon the same across all armies and units isn’t balance – it’s designer’s laziness or short-sightedness.


In that same example, the Archon's WS is conversly a great benefit over the tactical sergeant's. As well his attacks characteristic is twice as high, and he's fleet of foot. Plus his I still counts for overrun, and higher Ld. means he's running less often. He's got a pretty high cost compared to the tact. sargeant, don't get me wrong, but he's got a list of advantages, that IMHO outstrip his deficits. Should powerfists be discounted on Tactical sergeants too? Since they're less puissant than Captains?

I see all these arguements for why it's a good idea to cost upgrades depending on the user, but the thing is I can only really recall how many doors this approach closes in the game; and the fact that it closes MANY, and in every codex. The reason why we don't see fluffy upgrades and cool stuff taken on elite choices is because of this double cost policy where you have to pay twice for your statline. We can talk about how this idea is true or false until we're blue in the face, but when all is said and done, the fact is that units loaded to the gills are way below par in terms of value, and rarely make a showing in competitive scenes.

Don't mistake my opinion for bias, I specifically don't run these sorts of units, because I'm the 'big guns never tire' sort of bloke, and I love scything down these sorts of 200 year veterans like so much wheat.

Tarax
02-04-2014, 08:40
Also, with the current Unwieldy rule, a model with an Ini of 2 suffers almost no penalty, while a character with an Ini of 4 or more suffers a considerable penalty.

When I read this I thought about the Snapshot rule. Some models/armies suffer more from this than others, in a similar way.

I also have to ammend my earlier statement. I was thinking more of missile weapons than close combat weapons. Close combat involves more statistics (I, WS, S) then shooting (BS).
With that regard I thought back at the points cost in Fantasy (whether it's now or an edition ago, I'm not sure) where a weapon cost twice as much for a Hero and 4 times as much for a Lord than it was for a normal trooper, and this includes mounts as well. Eg a Lance costs 2 for a Silver Helm, 4 for a Noble and 8 for a Prince. While it may not be completely balanced, it has some potential.

Lorm
02-04-2014, 11:48
With that regard I thought back at the points cost in Fantasy (whether it's now or an edition ago, I'm not sure) where a weapon cost twice as much for a Hero and 4 times as much for a Lord than it was for a normal trooper, and this includes mounts as well. Eg a Lance costs 2 for a Silver Helm, 4 for a Noble and 8 for a Prince. While it may not be completely balanced, it has some potential.
Absolutely true, every single army presents differences in costs of weapons, especially for heroes and for lords, you can see it clearly in the cost for an halberd in Warriors of Chaos: Lords, heroes and regular troops can have one and its cost is slightly different in every case.
No one complains because it does make sense and works pretty well for overall costs.