PDA

View Full Version : GW does not give weapons appropriate costs



Alexandr Ulyanov
07-08-2007, 18:02
GW has said that options should cost more to those units which benefit more from them. They are extremely spotty at enforcing this rule of thumb.
For instance, look at codex: eldar. The weapons and defensive upgrades on a vyper cost exactly the same as they do on a falcon, though the vyper is much, much easier to destroy, no faster, and can concentrate less firepower. So if you want a starcannon, it's more cost effective to place it on the falcon where it can survive for longer and just avoid vypers entirely. Likewise, war walkers pay these same prices despite their fragility, which is why players emphasize the cheaper options for them.

Then look at the newest DA codex. All vehicles that are allowed to have extra armor pay the same amount for it, even though whirlwinds (which sit far from the enemy and require no firing lane to be effective) have very little to gain from it and transports can benefit greatly from the added movement.

These are a few examples of a constant trend at GW. They need to reversen the trend and make weapons cheaper on fragile vehicles and nearly useless upgrades nearly free if they are to live up to their ideal of balance.

Does GW recognize these as mistakes yet? Will they ever fix this problem?

killa kan kaus
07-08-2007, 18:07
i dont understand how they make these mistakes in the new codicies. When did this start? The newest ork codex does not have this problem.

Randy
07-08-2007, 18:07
They've started doing that. Storm bolters are only half the price on BA tanks compared to the baal to represent its over charged engine rules.

Alexandr Ulyanov
07-08-2007, 18:19
They've started doing that. Storm bolters are only half the price on BA tanks compared to the baal to represent its over charged engine rules.

Actually, the SB cost is boosted for the Baal, simply because it's another troop mowing gun on a troop mowing tank, so the two go relatively well together.

However, BA still pay the same extra armor costs for both whirlwinds and transports with no real justification, and captains pay the same for power fists as veteran sergeants. (In this edition, vet sergeants should pay more since the fist is much harder to take from them and they suffer less from the init loss)

So they're doing it sometimes. But not most of the time. And until they do, there will be a lot of units/options that are priced out of tournaments and others that show up every time.

Randy
07-08-2007, 18:26
That's my point - they're moving towards it already. I'm not complaining about teh cost of the SB on the baal, I think it is justified as a SB that can shoot after 12 inches movement IS better then a SB that canshoot after 6 inches movement.

Just I think GW is trialing it for now to see how it goes and then planning on introducing it later to other armies.

Also veteran sergants can get SLAPPED by mind war.

Calden
07-08-2007, 18:44
The power fist/weapon issue I see as this:

On a squad member it will last longer, but on most independent characters it will do potentially more dammage thanks to better initiative, higher weaponskill, and more attacks.

Alexandr Ulyanov
07-08-2007, 18:47
That's my point - they're moving towards it already. I'm not complaining about teh cost of the SB on the baal, I think it is justified as a SB that can shoot after 12 inches movement IS better then a SB that canshoot after 6 inches movement.

Just I think GW is trialing it for now to see how it goes and then planning on introducing it later to other armies.

They're not moving towards it, or if they are they're doing so by the tiniest amount possible from codex to codex. There are far more examples of things that defy the stated principle in the Blood Angels new list than there are things in compliance with it.


The power fist/weapon issue I see as this:

On a squad member it will last longer, but on most independent characters it will do potentially more dammage thanks to better initiative, higher weaponskill, and more attacks.
Independent characters usually have a better weapon skill but still the average hit is scored on a 3+ or 4+ for both of them. It's not a big difference until you more than double the enemy WS.
Better initiative matters nothing for powerfists.
More attacks by how many? A pf sergeant gets 3+1 if charging for 4. A pf/pistol captain gets 4+1 if charging. WOW.




Also veteran sergants can get SLAPPED by mind war.
Veteran sergeants get SLAPPED by any decent cc independent character since the character only fights a small portion of a squad at a time and usually kills all eligible models anyway, so he never gets a chance to pf. (A few examples: tooled autarchs, eversor assassins, DE Lords, broodlords...)Veteran Sergeants rock against dreads, MCs, and normal squads, though.

Randy
07-08-2007, 18:49
Ok then fine, you just destroyed your own argument. Veteran sergants don't live longer against a good player. Therefore, due to their lower survival rate, lower attacks, lower weapon skill they should have them cheaper.

Alexandr Ulyanov
07-08-2007, 19:03
Ok then fine, you just destroyed your own argument.
No, just yours.



Veteran sergants don't live longer against a good player.
Yes they do.

Why? Because while they get eaten by ICs there are rarely if ever enough ICs to hit all the vet sarges on the board. In fact, there are usually no more than 2 ICs to fight off all the pf sarges. Getting your sarges spanked on a large scale is therefore rare even if there are ICs around, and not every army even uses them.
However, pf sarges in big squads are so very much better at killing squads, WS vehicles, and MCs than ICs are, and those taken together form the vast majority of cc encounters.

So, due to the fact that vet sarges are AWESOME with powerfists when compared to ICs with them in the VAST MAJORITY of situations, the veteran sergeants should pay more for powerfists.

Egaeus
07-08-2007, 19:16
GW has said that options should cost more to those units which benefit more from them. They are extremely spotty at enforcing this rule of thumb.
For instance, look at codex: eldar. The weapons and defensive upgrades on a vyper cost exactly the same as they do on a falcon, though the vyper is much, much easier to destroy, no faster, and can concentrate less firepower. So if you want a starcannon, it's more cost effective to place it on the falcon where it can survive for longer and just avoid vypers entirely. Likewise, war walkers pay these same prices despite their fragility, which is why players emphasize the cheaper options for them.

Then look at the newest DA codex. All vehicles that are allowed to have extra armor pay the same amount for it, even though whirlwinds (which sit far from the enemy and require no firing lane to be effective) have very little to gain from it and transports can benefit greatly from the added movement.

These are a few examples of a constant trend at GW. They need to reversen the trend and make weapons cheaper on fragile vehicles and nearly useless upgrades nearly free if they are to live up to their ideal of balance.

Does GW recognize these as mistakes yet? Will they ever fix this problem?

Well there's a few more issues than just that...realize that War Walkers come in units of up to three...that means that a single hit that could kill a Falcon can only take out 1/3 of the War Walkers. Also, the basic War Walker is also significantly cheaper than the Falcon chassis. So the only issue I could see would potentially be if the units had a different BS.

Note that a Rhino chassis gets the exact same protection from Extra armour regardless of what options it has. If you don't think you're going to need EA on your Whirlwind then just don't buy it.

Now don't get me wrong, I think GW's pointing "system" is far from perfect. But realize that in many situations you have to look at the unit as a whole rather than its inidividual elements.

Lexington
07-08-2007, 19:19
Heh.

Just wait 'till y'all get ahold of the new Chaos Codex. Wanna see the definition of 'underpointed'? Check out the spell Lash of Submission.

Mostly a good army list, but, geez, what an oversight.

Randy
07-08-2007, 19:33
So saying with the correct technique you can remove veteran sergants with ease that ISN'T saying they're easy to kill? Yeh ok then..

And you can do the same with your own vet sergs/aspiring champions/exarchs etc with specialist gear.

It's all perception and how good you are with your army list writing and in game play.

Perfect Organism
07-08-2007, 19:38
Lexington, that's not really an example of something being mis-costed relative to the rest of it's army list, so much as just something which is pretty good for it's points value.

There are a few examples of this in the new chaos codex: wings cost the same for a sorcerer and a demon prince, although they are far more useful to the latter, flamers cost the same for raptors as standard chaos marines, although they are probably more useful to a dedicated fast assault unit, etc. On the other hand, they clearly did adjust the cost of some upgrades to match the unit they are given to, because the Icons vary in cost dramatically for different units.

The only codex I can think of where GW really seem to have tried to adjust the cost of every upgrade to suit the unit taking it is the Tyranid one.

BrainFireBob
07-08-2007, 19:48
GW has said that options should cost more to those units which benefit more from them. They are extremely spotty at enforcing this rule of thumb.
For instance, look at codex: eldar. The weapons and defensive upgrades on a vyper cost exactly the same as they do on a falcon, though the vyper is much, much easier to destroy, no faster, and can concentrate less firepower. So if you want a starcannon, it's more cost effective to place it on the falcon where it can survive for longer and just avoid vypers entirely. Likewise, war walkers pay these same prices despite their fragility, which is why players emphasize the cheaper options for them.

Then look at the newest DA codex. All vehicles that are allowed to have extra armor pay the same amount for it, even though whirlwinds (which sit far from the enemy and require no firing lane to be effective) have very little to gain from it and transports can benefit greatly from the added movement.

These are a few examples of a constant trend at GW. They need to reversen the trend and make weapons cheaper on fragile vehicles and nearly useless upgrades nearly free if they are to live up to their ideal of balance.

Does GW recognize these as mistakes yet? Will they ever fix this problem?

You're looking at things out of context.

This isn't a slam, but how long have you been playing? My guess is from either the beginning of 4th or just before, based on internal evidence.

What you're pointing out as "mistakes" date from the 3.0 and 3.5 periods. Take the powerfists on Vet sarges. In 3rd Ed, you could target any model that had a different statline- this meant that all of your attacks could be put on a Veteran Sarge. To balance this, after 3rd had been out a bit, GW made powerfists and powerweapons cheaper for sarges. Now, in 4th, Sarges have meatshields, something they lacked in 3rd, and all powerfists are "hidden." This means they're about as good as they are on a character, so the cost is being slowly re-adjusted.

Nurglitch
07-08-2007, 19:51
Sergeants have "meat-shields" so long as there's more models from the same unit in the zone of engagement than the attacks can kill.

BrainFireBob
07-08-2007, 19:53
Yes. A situational change from 3rd, where all attacks could be directed at the sergeant by himself, ignoring the unit entirely.

Randy
07-08-2007, 19:56
Basically in 3rd ed it was like targetting an IC is now, except you jsut need to be within 2 inches. Meaning they were easily killed. VERY easily killed.

Nurglitch
07-08-2007, 19:59
So when you can isolate the sergeant, or sufficiently minimize the number of other models in the zone of engagement then it is not protected by its "meat-shield".

Mad Doc Grotsnik
07-08-2007, 20:00
On your example....

Falcons do not come in Squadrons. Vypers do. This means, for a single slot, you can have 3 of any given weapon, rather than one. This means each must be higher priced in order to balance out.

This is the same reason why a Heavy Bolter in a Dev squad is a good deal more expensive than a Tac squad.....

Randy
07-08-2007, 20:02
My point exactly nurgliutch - which is why I don't feel the vet sergs should ahve to pay MORE for their PFs then HQs given that HQs have more attacks and a higher WS making far better use of them whilst they are alive.

To do the same amount of damage a vet sergant NEEDS to stay alive longer.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
07-08-2007, 20:05
And yet, for purposes of Killing Blow, the Veteran Sargeant is capable of doing far, far more damage, by dint of his meatshield. Remember, often, S8 is all it takes!

Captain Micha
07-08-2007, 20:05
it's the way it is for a reason in short. if it were cheaper you'd never take them on falcons would you?

why? because you get squadrons of them rather than just one or two. also, then they'd be cheaper on the pts.

the bigger badder units are supposed to seem to get a 'discount' of sorts next to the little fish with the big gun. You are already investing a massive pts sink, so they have to show some form of reward for it. Also the units in question generally can have multiples of them and are strangely enough, more flexible.

Randy
07-08-2007, 20:06
But in general, in the same way that in general he lives longer, he won't have a chance to do that.

Alexandr Ulyanov
07-08-2007, 23:29
So saying with the correct technique you can remove veteran sergants with ease that ISN'T saying they're easy to kill?
And genestealers being easily countered by things with I7+ in cc doesn't make them pushovers in cc most of the time, since such high init models are rare. Veteran sergeants can get owned by cc ICs, but how many cc ICs does the enemy bring to the average game? Not many, hence veteran sergeants are usually very survivable.



It's all perception and how good you are with your army list writing and in game play.
It's not perception and it's not how "good" you are at army list writing. Unless you tool an army specifically to kill vet sarges then your army will probably be bad at singling them out and they will cause more trouble for you than enemy pf ICs.


My point exactly nurgliutch - which is why I don't feel the vet sergs should ahve to pay MORE for their PFs then HQs given that HQs have more attacks and a higher WS making far better use of them whilst they are alive.

Vet Sarges are RARELY countered via isolation. Should we assume that mephiston is crap at staying alive because he is RARELY countered by a railgun? And when the enemy can deal 3 MEQ killing blows a round it's clear that a pf captain can be killed instantly before getting any attacks or in 2 rounds with iron halo while a vet sarge in a squad of 10 just keeps going for 3 rounds. So vet sarge gets 9 total attacks, IC gets 3; same str and often same chance to hit. The problem is that this situation in which the vet sarge gets attacks where a pf IC gets less before dying is far more common in games. Hence pf sarges are generally better than pf ICs and should pay more fore the hidden pf.



To do the same amount of damage a vet sergant NEEDS to stay alive longer.
In many cases, a pf IC is killed before he gets to attack. And the vet sarge only has to stay alive for 1 more round in almost all circumstances to be more effective than the pf IC. And he usually does survive for that much longer or more.


it's the way it is for a reason in short. if it were cheaper you'd never take them on falcons would you?

Yes I would. Because falcons can have more guns(and as devastators teach us, more guns that can be fired at once=higher price per gun), can tank shock, and are transports, and so might be worth more to arm and protect than a vyper.



why? because you get squadrons of them rather than just one or two. also, then they'd be cheaper on the pts.

Squadron=bad formation. Single models are better because extra hits inflicted on one don't carry over to the others and single models can target different enemies if they choose, ect.
You can have more, which might be seen as a benefit if many people believed that taking even one vyper with anything but the cheapest upgrades was a cost-effective choice now.



the bigger badder units are supposed to seem to get a 'discount' of sorts next to the little fish with the big gun.

So landraiders are more worth their points than landspeeder tornadoes? No.

The Orange
07-08-2007, 23:56
Does GW recognize these as mistakes yet? Will they ever fix this problem?

It's only a mistake if the units are considered unbalanced. Are they? Just because GW has a principle of making weapons cheaper on some units, and more expensive on other units does not mean they should/must apply this principle to everything.

Did you consider the initial cost of those said units as well? A Viper is what? somewhere in the neighborhood of 45pts base. What about the falcon, it's more then twice that at base cost, and it's only minorly more survivable without some upgrades which in my experience usually bring them up closer to 200pts. Thats a big difference in cost, which doesn't change when you add the same weapon. A Viper may be more fragile, but then again, you can always buy a back up. Heck buy yourself 3, even if its survivability isn't the same as the supposed uber falcon, you've still got 3 times the firepower. Dedicated firepower at that, instead of the falcons multitude of weapons which are only good against different types of targets. Warwalkers are even cheaper for their base cost, and they can be equipped with even more firepower.

Besides ,the only outcome you'd get is that weapons on the WW and viper would get more expensive, not cheaper. Look at Tac. Marines vs. a devastator squad. The weapons cost more on the Dev. squad because they can get more of the same weapons thus the unit can become extremely effective against one type of enemy. Where as the Tac. squad is limited to only 1 heavy weapon, which may not complement the bolters that the rest of the squad is armed with. The same principle applies to the falcon/viper comparison. Falcons should get weapons cheaper because they only get one, and it most likely won't complement the pulse laser the tank has. Viper on the other hand can get the same weapons, thus making the unit more effective against certain units, thus they'd become more expensive.

Grand Master Raziel
08-08-2007, 01:43
I made a similar point to Jervis Johnson in a letter I wrote him about a month ago. The specific example I used was that a power fist is a more useful upgrade to an Assault Squad sergeant than to a Devestator Squad sergeant, so the Dev Squad sergeant should be able to get it cheaper. To that he replied that when they printed dexes with variable prices for such upgrades, it created confusion, so in future dexes everybody's upgrades will cost the same to avoid that.

Nurglitch
08-08-2007, 01:48
And genestealers being easily countered by things with I7+ in cc doesn't make them pushovers in cc most of the time, since such high init models are rare. Veteran sergeants can get owned by cc ICs, but how many cc ICs does the enemy bring to the average game? Not many, hence veteran sergeants are usually very survivable. I just wanted to say something here. This paragraph is good up to the last sentence, as it explains something important about making generalized statements like "This is good." and "That is bad.": One needs to contextualize them, and thus give the conditions by which the statement may be considered about something and possibly true.

So we can say the sentence "Genestealers are push-overs in assault when facing models with I7+." is true insofar as it is relative initiative that makes a model a push-over in assault, and that the sentence "Genestealers are push-overs in assault." just means "Genestealers are X in assault." which doesn't mean anything until we know what x is supposed to be.

But then you go ahead and do the exact same thing. Veterans sergeants usually survive. When? How? Veteran sergeants usually survive when opposing players don't bring many independent characters to a game. Also saying that 'veteran sergeants are survivable' means that they can be survived, not that they survive well.

Incidentally this is false, as well as the next statement.


It's not perception and it's not how "good" you are at army list writing. Unless you tool an army specifically to kill vet sarges then your army will probably be bad at singling them out and they will cause more trouble for you than enemy pf ICs. Actually the techniques for culling veteran sergeant and other squad specialists are the same for every army and the material available to do it with merely levers your change of success. The first way is to shoot at the unit in question so that the specialist must be removed as a casualties, either by throwing lots of dice at the unit, or by restricting range and LOS such that you're getting a similar attack die to model ratio. The second way is to assault a unit so that only the desired model, or the desired model and few enough others, are engaged.

This second way is also a tactic for winning assaults. The assaulting player sets up their models in the movement phase so that only one or two assaulting models make contact in the assault phase, massacre their opponents so few (and preferably none) can attack back, and then wipe them out in a sweeping advance.

Obviously if you have really hard-hitting troops then you can rely on over-whelming firepower or close-combat power to slice up the opposing army for you. But if you don't have really hard-hitting troops then you can just be clever and position your troops so that range, LOS, and engagement lets you pick them apart.

The most obvious problem with this is "Well, what if they know I'm doing it?" And the answer is "Use that caution. Tightening unit coherency in order to prevent hit-and-run assaults means you finally have something well-packed to shoot with all those blast-template weapons. Likewise unless a player doesn't use their expensive specialists and just hides them away where they can't be sniped and just wastes their potential, then you can proceed as normal to try and out-manoeuvre them. In particular hard-hitting units tend to be expensive, and if you keep your own units inexpensive then you can outnumber them and force them to make choices about which field of fire they want to move through. Two or more equal choices isn't what you want though, you want to cover a good position with two or more fields of fire, and leave a bad position as the safe option.

It's like the thing about Orks or Imperial Guard without power weapons. Sure, one on one a unit of marines'll knobble your troops, but the point is to not to take them on one on one, and any kind of fair fight if you can help it. And you can if you take the time to consider where the other player's units can move over the course of the game.

sebster
08-08-2007, 04:48
I made a similar point to Jervis Johnson in a letter I wrote him about a month ago. The specific example I used was that a power fist is a more useful upgrade to an Assault Squad sergeant than to a Devestator Squad sergeant, so the Dev Squad sergeant should be able to get it cheaper. To that he replied that when they printed dexes with variable prices for such upgrades, it created confusion, so in future dexes everybody's upgrades will cost the same to avoid that.

That’s a pretty sad indictment on the average 40ker, isn’t it.

Anyhow, I kind of like the idea of base costs for weapons regardless of the platform. A lascannon is a lascannon, and the resources used to build it, ship it to the 101st Valhallan and train someone to fire the thing is the same whether that soldier is in a heavy weapons team or in an infantry platoon.

If a weapon is less useful in an infantry squad, that’s a pretty good reason to leave it to the heavy weapons squads. If a powerfist is an expensive option with little value in a devastator squad, then the option shouldn’t be taken. Similarly, a warwalker is a highly vulnerable weapons platform and wouldn’t be loaded with the best weapons available to the Eldar, those weapons would be deployed on more survivable platforms like the falcon.

But even though standard costing would be my preference, either standard costing or relative points costing would be better than this hazy middle ground we currently have, where some weapons seem to be costed based on their value in the current unit, and others are costed based on their general value.

sebster
08-08-2007, 05:02
I just wanted to say something here. This paragraph is good up to the last sentence, as it explains something important about making generalized statements like "This is good." and "That is bad.": One needs to contextualize them, and thus give the conditions by which the statement may be considered about something and possibly true.

So we can say the sentence "Genestealers are push-overs in assault when facing models with I7+." is true insofar as it is relative initiative that makes a model a push-over in assault, and that the sentence "Genestealers are push-overs in assault." just means "Genestealers are X in assault." which doesn't mean anything until we know what x is supposed to be.

But then you go ahead and do the exact same thing. Veterans sergeants usually survive. When? How? Veteran sergeants usually survive when opposing players don't bring many independent characters to a game. Also saying that 'veteran sergeants are survivable' means that they can be survived, not that they survive well.

You would do well to stop being so clever all the time.

The underlying assertion of AU’s post was that the situations in which the two stated units, the genestealer and the powerfist sergeant, do not meet the general statement ‘they are good in assault’ are so rare as to be entirely irrelevant. It may be technically true that the rider ‘as long as the enemy doesn’t have IN 7’ needs to be added to make the genestealer comment true. But this situation is so rare as to make the rider nothing but a pointless bit of pedantry.

You can also add a rider to the comment ‘Veteran sergeants with powerfists are good in assault because they can’t be targeted individually’, and that rider might look something like ‘provided the unit is involved in an assault during the game, doesn’t take too many casualties to shooting before the assault, doesn’t get assaulted by a unit of such quality/good dice that the entire engagement zone is cleared before he gets to attack, doesn’t get assaulted by an IC with a much smaller zone of engagement, and doesn’t fluff all his attacks.’ But these options are obvious or obscure enough that they add no detail beyond the initial statement. The rider certainly adds no value in the context of the debate ‘shouldn’t troops in units pay more for a powerfist that ICs?’

Nurglitch
08-08-2007, 05:33
But this situation is so rare as to make the rider nothing but a pointless bit of pedantry. Y'know, considering a large part of this hobby is painstakingly painting tiny models you'd think that people would notice the importance of getting details right.


The rider certainly adds no value in the context of the debate ‘shouldn’t troops in units pay more for a powerfist that ICs?’ Actually the 'rider' or qualification that you propose adds great value to the project of answering whether troops in units should pay more points for powerfists than independent characters.

If a unit isn't involved in any assaults, then paying extra points for a power fist will be equivalent to assuming a handicap of equal value. If a unit can take casualties from shooting before an assault such that the power fist armed model is picked out, and units of independent characters cannot then the expected value of a power fist on an independent character goes up with the chance to use it in an assault. If a unit can be assaulted such that the engagement zone is cleared before the power fist armed model can attack, then the points spent on a power fist should account for that situation as it restricts their usefulness. If a power fist armed model has less potential attacks then an independent character that should be accounted for as well, as it lowers affects the expected utility of that model in any game relative to that independent character.

Each of these options is a detail. Alone and isolated they're all minor and can be glossed over, but together they multiply out such that any answer to the question of whether troops in units should pay more points for powerfists than independent characters will be wildly inaccurate if it does not account for them altogether. You can't reason with deductive validity from partial premises, and it's silly not to when doing so requires so little effort.

But you're right, the careful enumeration of facts adds nothing to the debate because it focuses attention on discovering the truth of the matter rather than on the internet penis-waving of debaters.

sebster
08-08-2007, 05:55
Y'know, considering a large part of this hobby is painstakingly painting tiny models you'd think that people would notice the importance of getting details right.

Actually the 'rider' or qualification that you propose adds great value to the project of answering whether troops in units should pay more points for powerfists than independent characters.

There’s details and there’s pedantry. ‘My car is fast’ is a statement. ‘My car is fast because it can go from 0-100 in 2 seconds and has a top speed of 250 kms/hr’ adds detail. Insisting that additional facts be included so the final statement reads; ‘My car is fast because it can go from 0-100 in 2 seconds and has a top speed of 250 kms/hr, as long as it has petrol, all the wheels are attached, and there is someone in the car driving it’ is adding pedantic detail.

Each of the last set of points is true, but not useful at all because they’re either obvious or very rare circumstances.

Nurglitch
08-08-2007, 06:05
All the more reason to be assiduous in our accounting of them then, if they are so easily over-looked.

sebster
08-08-2007, 06:49
All the more reason to be assiduous in our accounting of them then, if they are so easily over-looked.

Well, I thought they were obvious enough and peripheral to the issue at hand, so they didn’t need to be specifically stated.

BrainFireBob
08-08-2007, 08:16
All the more reason to be assiduous in our accounting of them then, if they are so easily over-looked.

Accounting does not necessitate statement. In order to communicate in context, we need to make assumptions about the knowledge base of the person to whom we are speaking. It is reasonable to assume that any given 40K player knows the power of powerfists on Marine sergeants, this is sufficient to illustrate the point being made. You've a bad tendency to be pedantic and then declare yourself the winner simply because you added more form, which does not, nor does it ever, imply adding more content. Right now, for instance, I'm assuming you speak English and are not an idiot, so I'm hitting the highlights of my point. If you'd like, I could break it down- but contrary to the opinion you tout as trumping opponents, breaking it down unnecessarily would add nothing of particular value. I do agree that details are often overlooked, but there is such a thing as not needing to refer to them because they are negligible in application. There is such a thing as "on-balance" truth as well.

Calden
08-08-2007, 08:35
One thing I was turning over in my head recently, with the release of the Dark Angels codex, was the veteran sergeants costing the same, and their weapon options costing the same in a Devestator Squad.

The obvious reason being that a power fist armed veteran sergeant in a devestator squad will be much less likely to be useful that in most other squads, in fact in most situations it's only his leadership that will be of use. So why shouldn't he cost less, and his weapon options cost less?

Then I considered that if these options were reduced in price then there would be much more of an incentive for people to use spare points to invest in these bonuses, especially if they were reduced by a significant margin. Now I think in some ways that Jervis may well have avoided doing that so that a devestator squad is much less likely to be able to handle itself in assaults as well as a Tactical squad. It's an interesting conundrum.

Should a close combat enhancement cost the same on the Devestators because it discourages the enemy from countering them with their own assault units, and gives the Devestators another area they can be relatively good in, or should it cost less as in most situations the close combat enhancements will be of little use?

Nurglitch
08-08-2007, 09:38
sebster:

Except that this information is not peripheral to the issue at hand but the very stuff of it. Measure twice, saw once, as the saying goes.

BrainFireBob
08-08-2007, 09:45
Some yes, some no, with respect to the particular topic. Claiming that it a priori trumps lack of specificity, especially where context is already implied, isn't validated thereby.

Nurglitch
08-08-2007, 10:38
Accounting does not necessitate statement. Actually yes, to account for something is to state it. Modern accounting practices are made necessary by the fact that something is only accounted for when there is a record or statement to that effect that can be retrieved. And something must be accounted for before it can be discounted. Else we are just arbitrarily selecting our data, and thus biasing our account.


In order to communicate in context, we need to make assumptions about the knowledge base of the person to whom we are speaking. It is reasonable to assume that any given 40K player knows the power of powerfists on Marine sergeants, this is sufficient to illustrate the point being made. So basically what you're saying is that any given 40k player has the perfect instant recall, infallible reasoning skills, and a sufficient sample of experience to make sound deductions about the value of weapons in the game? While that's very charitable of you it seems to be contradicted by the content of these forums. People talk past each other, or talk vaguely, or reason badly, or forget rules, or don't know rules, or haven't really thought about those rules, or even care to. No, people are unfortunately like account books. If they disagree then you need to methodically go through them step by step and account for all apparent disagreements in order to resolve the disagreement objectively.


You've a bad tendency to be pedantic and then declare yourself the winner simply because you added more form, which does not, nor does it ever, imply adding more content. Y'know, I don't think you'd appreciate me pronouncing that you have a bad tendency to be careless. It would be untrue, for one thing. The fact that you don't seem to take much care in your reasoning does not license me to believe you to be careless. That would be an ad hominem and I should hate to be stupid enough to attack a person rather than their argument, or to blatantly slander them. I never declare myself the "winner" quite simply because arguments cannot be won. Regardless of the inapplicability of 'winning' to argumentation discussing why we are treating some subject in a particular manner always adds something to the content of the discussion, the discussion itself. The entire project of mathematics depends on this sort of reflexivity to generate content.


Right now, for instance, I'm assuming you speak English and are not an idiot, so I'm hitting the highlights of my point. Actually I'd prefer it if you didn't assume those things. I find that when we don't assume these things about other people we stop assuming them about ourselves, and the self-consciousness motivates care and compassion. There are too many idiots out there for intellectual confidence to be any kind of virtue.


If you'd like, I could break it down- but contrary to the opinion you tout as trumping opponents, breaking it down unnecessarily would add nothing of particular value. I do agree that details are often overlooked, but there is such a thing as not needing to refer to them because they are negligible in application. There is such a thing as "on-balance" truth as well. Excepting I'm not touting an opinion as "trumping opponents". I'm pointing out that raising such detail is methodologically necessary to assure ourselves that nothing is missed because it is precisely the problem that something is being missed where GW does not give weapons appropriate costs.

That is, it is methodologically necessary if we want to settle the question objectively and move on.

Biomass Denial
08-08-2007, 10:55
I also support the idea of different cost on the powerfists because us nid players can handle close combat weapons costing different amounts for different units based on the benifits it gives that unit, this is why my carnifex will pay less for rending claws than a warrior because of the lack of benifits this upgrade gives a MC. Also the argument that whirlwinds and rhinos or razorbacks should pay the same for extra amour because you can choose not to take it is surprising because by the same logic it should cost exactly the same for me to give my carnifex a better save as it does to give warriors the same save even though this can have a large difference on the two units.

Randy
08-08-2007, 12:02
Every unit has its weakness, whether or not you can exploit it is down to 2 things:
1. Your army lsit, how capable your army is of dealing with a given threat.

2. How well you use it.

If you have written a list that has a fast unit which is good in combat then it can remove a vet sergant quite easily (Harlies with kisses, banshees against a doomed unit, a vet serg with a PW, making sure it's one of the only models in range etc) without having to bank on IC. My point it isn't essential most of the time to go through the rest of the unit. The other part of this point is that many players have ways to do it in their army without banking on IC - these solutions aren't rare. Unlike I7 models.

Overall they won't cause as much more trouble then a PF IC assuming you attack the PF IC properly - ie with power weapons/instant death weapons/sheer number of attacks to bring it down. If you attack a vet sergants squad with the same level of appropiateness, it won't get its attacks in as you vna simply remove casualties earlier from near him or attack him with a power weapon vet sergant and make sure nothing else is in the kill zone like I said. So no, it won't cause much more trouble for a good palyer. That's assuming a 10 man squad too.

In many cases the PF unit is wiped out/the guy taken out of engagement before he gets to attack too.

No, we should considor Mephiston crap because of how fragile he is without an invunerable save. Sure you can't isolate them completley but you can limit them untill you can get an appropiate fix, eg any of the ones I mentioned earlier.

Why are you saying devs have expensive guns as if it's justified? They should be cheaper, you know, seeing how they're more fragile then ones in a tactical squad? And that's your whole argument with PFs? That IC don't use them as much?

On your theory for squadrons, you shouldn't be taking more then minimum squad sizes ever as hits can carry through on infantry as well.

Also, given the values that the power fists are (By your judgement that is alex) We should be giving PFs to ICs for something along thelines of 3 points, seeing how it's basically suicide to use it. Hell, why not make it really fair by your judgement and give everyones HQ a PF for free!!

Egaeus
08-08-2007, 15:06
Then I considered that if these options were reduced in price then there would be much more of an incentive for people to use spare points to invest in these bonuses, especially if they were reduced by a significant margin. Now I think in some ways that Jervis may well have avoided doing that so that a devestator squad is much less likely to be able to handle itself in assaults as well as a Tactical squad. It's an interesting conundrum.

Should a close combat enhancement cost the same on the Devestators because it discourages the enemy from countering them with their own assault units, and gives the Devestators another area they can be relatively good in, or should it cost less as in most situations the close combat enhancements will be of little use?

I commented in an earlier post in this thread that my understanding is that the Sarge gets the same net effect from a powerfist whether he is in a Tactical Squad, Assault Squad, or Devastator squad. Now I fully understand that the unit will have a variable effectiveness because of its role in the army (that is, it's quite likely that you Devastator squad will never see assault). But remember that you don't have to take any heavy weapons in a Devastator squad, you could just use it as another group of footsloggers. And if the PF were cheaper, this might in some cases become a better-than-it-should-be option.

Of course this would raise the question of why heavy weapons in a Devastator squad don't have a progressive cost since a basic Tac squad with a heavy weapon and a Dev squad with one weapon would have the exact same effectiveness, but the Dev squad costs more (my guess would be "because it's simpler that way" plus the concept of potential...that the Dev squad can have more weapons.)


I also support the idea of different cost on the powerfists because us nid players can handle close combat weapons costing different amounts for different units based on the benifits it gives that unit, this is why my carnifex will pay less for rending claws than a warrior because of the lack of benifits this upgrade gives a MC. Also the argument that whirlwinds and rhinos or razorbacks should pay the same for extra amour because you can choose not to take it is surprising because by the same logic it should cost exactly the same for me to give my carnifex a better save as it does to give warriors the same save even though this can have a large difference on the two units.

But that's exactly the point...Extra armour has the exact same effect on a Rhino or a Whirlwind. As above, we could make arguments about the expected effectiveness of the upgrade, in that a Whirlwind is likely to take less fire than a Rhino, but that is no guarantee. A Warrior with Extended Carapace and a Carnifex with Extended Carapace have a huge margin of difference in effect, thus should have different costs.

And that's the argument with the powerfist as well...all Vet Sarges have the same statline regardless of the squad they are in, so their basic effectiveness is the same across the board, despite the differences in their squads' roles.

Higgen
09-08-2007, 07:27
I'm pointing out that raising such detail is methodologically necessary to assure ourselves that nothing is missed because it is precisely the problem that something is being missed where GW does not give weapons appropriate costs.
Why is this necessary? You jumped on AU because he didn't include all the qualifiers on how and when a vet sarge is survivable because most of the people involved in the discussion would realize that there are always in-game caveats that would negate such rules. Are you going to start appending rules every time that you discuss a unit? That would be infinitely more beneficial than a pedantic appraisal of every minute detail because there are plenty of people who don't know the rules of every army, through no fault of their own. Yet that would not only be against the rules of the forums, but unecessary.

When you are composing a post, you are assuming certain things about your audience. You, obviously, assume that the majority of internet posters are 'dick-waving' 'idiots'. In this discussion, the majority of the posters assume that you realise the common realities of the game and such things do not need clarification. Yet, I find it humorous that you obviously are not addressing your posts to the dirty unwashed, but to those you deem able to read and comprehend your posts. So why even bother to elucidate the variables of each and every situation when those who need the knowledge most aren't your audience? :eyebrows:

On topic, someone else brought it up earlier, and I think it's a very good point. Vet Sarges actually do pay more, in fact. Their statlines are not as good as those whom you deem should be paying less. One more attack is a tremendous improvement, even ignoring other differences. Are those stat increases worth the same amount of points as the Vet Sarge's benefits? I couldn't tell you, but I don't think it's off as it could be.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 13:39
If you have written a list that has a fast unit which is good in combat then it can remove a vet sergant quite easily (Harlies with kisses, banshees against a doomed unit
Harlies, banshees, genestealers, etc. are not anti-vet sarge specialists; they simply tear most things up before the target gets to hit back. This strategy is often EVEN MORE effective against ICs, so long as the IC does not have an absolutely incredible initiative.


a vet serg with a PW
A veteran sergeant with a power weapon being used to kill a veteran sergeant with a powerfist is on its own not an effective tactic. The power weapon adds some deadly strokes to the squad's attacks, slightly increasing killing power, but it doesn't prevent the opponent from distributing the death to his other models first. That power weapon is no more an anti-vet sarge strategy than giving the squad furious charge.



My point it isn't essential most of the time to go through the rest of the unit.

Getting the lean/perfect range or LOS shooting position(if such a position is available at all) are the only legitimate strategies I have seen so far for countering vet sarges other than using ICs. These are hard to implement, especially if the target is very mobile, and IMPOSSIBLE to implement if his squad charges from a transport(or deploys and charges the same turn); you can't lean on something that charged you first, nor can you shoot it when it is never exposed during your turn. And Guess what? Rhinos are cheaper than ever.



The other part of this point is that many players have ways to do it in their army without banking on IC - these solutions aren't rare.

As I said, the valid solutions you presented are largely sidestepped through use of transports.



Overall they won't cause as much more trouble then a PF IC...ie with power weapons/instant death weapons/sheer number of attacks to bring it down...
So enough deadly attacks to overkill either an IC or a whole squad along with the sarge eliminates both threats very easily. Getting all those powerful attacks all on one unit at once is hard for many armies. Sure, tyranids, eldar, and prob dark eldar can all do it well, but what about IG? Tau? SoB? And even in those armies that can, if the doom squad you make is negated somehow(runs into super tarpit or shot to death, etc) then the rest of your army will prob have an easier time taking out pf ICs than pf sarges if you are charged.



In many cases the PF unit is wiped out/the guy taken out of engagement before he gets to attack too.

Yes, in many cases, but not the majority. The number of squads that can kill off a whole unit of guys and their pf sarge in one round is much smaller than the number of units that can't, and is also smaller than the number of units that can kill ICs faster than they can kill a whole squad.



Why are you saying devs have expensive guns as if it's justified? They should be cheaper, you know, seeing how they're more fragile then ones in a tactical squad?

That could be a valid point. However, the devs still can have a lot of ablative wounds (6 vs tactical 9), so the difference isn't that great in that regard. However, I fully agree that the extra fragility of the devs should be taken into account when pricing them. (It is outweighed by the other factors, though, IMO)



On your theory for squadrons, you shouldn't be taking more then minimum squad sizes ever as hits can carry through on infantry as well.

Major, important differences:
+Vehicles normally benefit from a sort of "I'm not dead, but part of me broke" situation in which an immobilized vehicle can still do some damage to the enemy. However, if the squadron has an imobilized vehicle it either kills the vehicle or is anchored.
+Troops have to worry about the number of casualties to get below 50%-unless they benefit from a special morale rule-since it can render them unable to regroup and gives them a morale penalty. Therefore, more squad members means less chance of catastrophic fall back. Vehicles never fall back and so do not benefit from this part of forming larger units.



Also, given the values that the power fists are (By your judgement that is alex) We should be giving PFs to ICs for something along thelines of 3 points, seeing how it's basically suicide to use it.
Yes, just like autarchs only have to pay a few points for banshee masks since they don't get much of a benefit from it. (They will usually go first anyway) Maybe not 3 pts each for pfs though, as they still are pwnage on many vehicles.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 13:51
I made a similar point to Jervis Johnson in a letter I wrote him about a month ago. The specific example I used was that a power fist is a more useful upgrade to an Assault Squad sergeant than to a Devestator Squad sergeant, so the Dev Squad sergeant should be able to get it cheaper. To that he replied that when they printed dexes with variable prices for such upgrades, it created confusion, so in future dexes everybody's upgrades will cost the same to avoid that.

Well, I must say that I think you were on the right track with your train of thought. I have something to add.

Now, assuming the assault squad doesn't take jump packs and instead takes a transport, then the advantage gained over the devs if they also take a transport and have no heavy weapons is simply that the assault squad has ccws/bolt pistols and is therefore slightly better in cc and less likely to want to shoot. Not terribly significant, but somewhat so.

The big difference in my mind comes when you combine jump packs and other fast movement modes with assault upgrades. Since perfect placement of cc troops can be very important to the effectiveness of such a weapon and of furious charge, units that have take both furious charge/a power weapon/etc and a jump pack should pay more if the points are to be perfectly measured against effectiveness.

Randy
12-08-2007, 15:00
My point about the devastators wasn't that they were broken, but that by your theory of fragility alex that they should cost less then a tactical because a tactical can take more casualties before heavy weapons get removed (9 against 6 on fully heavy weaponed units)

My point about the combat units I mentioned was thatthey could charge so a limited number of models are in their kill zone - the vet serg being one of them. They're fast enough to do it normally too.

By making sure you focus the squad around your vet with a PW and you only get a handful of models engaged (obviously the PF being one of them) you could just wipe the kill zone.

A PF is a combat weapon, so I'm killing it on its own terms. Anything can be shot at but a good player will check LoS first.

If a player is that worried about a PF vet in combat, they'll bring down the rhinos.

IG just focus fire, a tau firing line with a few markerlights can quite easily wipe out a 10 strong unit of MEQs, SoB can just use a faith point to tarpit them witha 3 up save and counter charge with something that -can- kill the unit fairly easily.
Sure the IG firing line could be damaged enough to make you have tochoose, but that's what tarpits are for.
Sure the tau might not be able to focus their fire, but if that is really an issue and they're in charging range either the players jsut flat out bad or they've barely got anything left and are about to lose anyway.
With sisters if you're -that- bothered with a few faith points and a power weapon in the unit you will probably come out about even going 1on1 unit wise.

True you might have an easier time bringing down 1 PF IC acting alone, but generally it's not too hard to bring down a HQ if it runs off by itself anyway.

If you're throwing your IC into a unit which you think will kill it does that not tell you your doing something wrong unles you want it to die anyway?

To be perfectly hoenst I can't even rmeember what the next bit about squadrons was referring to and I cba searching.

PFs still have a distinctive use though - a banshee mask on something that's what, I6?7? Has a potential use against maybe 10 units in the whole game. Doubling your strength with a MEQ is useful against anythign more then toughness 2, which I'm sure is more then the number of units that have the same/higher I then an autarch.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 15:19
My point about the devastators wasn't that they were broken, but that by your theory of fragility alex that they should cost less then a tactical because a tactical can take more casualties before heavy weapons get removed (9 against 6 on fully heavy weaponed units)

I got the point. Yes, the devastators would win the fragility comparison with fully kitted out units. There are other comparisons to be made, though, that counteract that to some degree, as I'm sure you'd tell me to prove me wrong if I just blindly agreed that devastator weapons should be cheaper.



My point about the combat units I mentioned was thatthey could charge so a limited number of models are in their kill zone - the vet serg being one of them. They're fast enough to do it normally too.

Yes, speed would help. However, due to the nature of charging hitting that sarge assuming he is not placed at the end of a line with enough models to kill him but not enough to hit the squad as a whole is extremely difficult. Point valid, but minor.



By making sure you focus the squad around your vet with a PW and you only get a handful of models engaged (obviously the PF being one of them) you could just wipe the kill zone.

Like I said, though, the power weapon doesn't boost your specific anti-sarge capability. It just boosts the overall killing power of the squad it's in much as furious charge might.



If a player is that worried about a PF vet in combat, they'll bring down the rhinos.

Yes, all of them, without knowing which the PF(s) might be in.



PFs still have a distinctive use though - a banshee mask on something that's what, I6?7? Has a potential use against maybe 10 units in the whole game. Doubling your strength with a MEQ is useful against anythign more then toughness 2, which I'm sure is more then the number of units that have the same/higher I then an autarch.
Which is why I basically said they should be cheap, but not 3 pts cheap.

scarvet
12-08-2007, 15:46
I made a similar point to Jervis Johnson in a letter I wrote him about a month ago. The specific example I used was that a power fist is a more useful upgrade to an Assault Squad sergeant than to a Devestator Squad sergeant, so the Dev Squad sergeant should be able to get it cheaper. To that he replied that when they printed dexes with variable prices for such upgrades, it created confusion, so in future dexes everybody's upgrades will cost the same to avoid that.

Someone may said it already, but I will be my voice in to reinforce how BS JJ is: what about Heavy weapon on Devastator and Tactical squad?

Seriously, someone in GW is just too far from reality......

Remoah
12-08-2007, 16:03
Alot of GW stuff is really off the ball...
I mean, 70 points for an IG transport, considering we're a TANK army...

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 16:12
Someone may said it already, but I will be my voice in to reinforce how BS JJ is: what about Heavy weapon on Devastator and Tactical squad?
THE IRONY, IT HURTS MY LIVER.


Alot of GW stuff is really off the ball...
I mean, 70 points for an IG transport, considering we're a TANK army...
Actually, isn't it 80+ pts since the turret gun is mandatory?

And it's not that good of a tank/transport; it has very long sections of weak side armor, cannot mount a reusable anti-heavy vehicle weapon, and only deploys/loads soldiers from the back.

Randy
12-08-2007, 17:21
Which is why you learn to put stuff in a chevron kind of shape to get maximum possible attacks with the smallest possible "kill zone".

Not specifically against a VS no but it gives you a more focused amount of killing power, which can be focused around the VS.

True but realistically how many rhinos does a player normally have minus ones that are for static units and used as cover, thus deployed with the unit out of it? 3? 4 maybe? So much trouble. Obviously.

Really it depends on who you're fighting - if it's a specialist combat unit there's a reasonable chance you won't be striking first anyway (presuming it's tooled to kill MEQs/HQs rather then hordes.) Banshees, harlies, Libby with familiar, autarch, all sorts. Striking last isn't such a liability.