Quote Originally Posted by Kriegschmidt View Post
@Commissar: Except that that makes no sense in gaming terms. Spending 200 points on a smaller, elite squad or 200pts on a huge meat shield unit: the latter shouldn't require more points to be spent on guns than the former, or else it would cost more than 200pts. Like I said, larger units now escape the limitations of the points value system in this way.

I don't follow you.

Let's say Unit A has 5 models and Unit B has 20. They both cost the same.

Assuming the points aren't completely jacked up, A likely has a higher toughness and/or better save than B. Thus no matter what the blast area is, it's going to take fewer casualties from the same amount of shooting.

The issue seems to be that dense units take the same losses as dispersed ones, which is unfortunate but an artifact of the way GW does its miniatures. In fact, there are a lot of such artifacts.

A bit of trivia from an old-timer: according to a strict interpretation of the 2nd ed. rules, not only did models have to shoot the closest or easiest target, they inflicted losses on those units from front to back as well. Thus a template had to be placed at a model the shooter could see (since all models blocked LOS). People trying to center the template on the unit were breaking the rules.

This made (some) templates less effective, but also made the game a bit more realistic.

Getting back to the matter at hand, the traditional way to "fix" a unit or weapon is simply to change either the point value or effect. Adding extra rules contingent on target unit size seems the least efficient way to go about things. 40k may need changes, but more special rules aren't among them.