10th edition tournament results - it doesn't look good

[Plaguecaster]

Plague marines are a prime example as who the hell would ever take bolters on any now since literally every option is miles better 

Doesn't help from previous editions where bolters were how you kept the unit cheap with only few upgrades or the fact so many limited boxes / models (heroes, reinforcement ) or starter sets are worthless and never will be used at all now

Even without the fact of what's good or min maxing you now have a box of plague marines where a good portion of bits are completely useless,  if  new player brought a box to include a squad of them as decided to build a few with bolters they will suddenly find their choice to be completely useless for games as you have to max out all the options you can take just to make them even slightly  worthwhile 

 

Start of DG being a codex  I kept upgrades minamial like how it was for most squads couple of special weapons and a fist or other type of weapon on the champ

 

Then upgrades started getting free and I was shooting myself in the foot running non effective plague marine squads so had to buy more just to field the options I didn't take because pricey 

Now it's here where all upgrades are free so certain options are now useless or flat out unusable (like sigils) so large number of plague marines just get shoved into a box and will never see light of day again. 

Over the releases for DG there are 10 separate bolter plague marines models not including the ones you can build normally from the plague marine box so enough for a full 10 man squad  all made completely useless now

 

 

[Kallas]

29 minutes ago, Rhavien said:

Guys, would your point of view change if you already hadn't build and painted a lot of min/maxed squads?

No - I magnetise because GW shifts decisions at the drop of a hat. It isn't because it affects my models' wargear, because I can adapt it; it bothers me because they have not balanced the options in any way, either by making the options meaningfully different and viable, or by making them cost an appropriate amount of points.

 

If they had made all options balanced against one another, then sure, it'd be understandable (even if it would still leave 'No Upgrades' out in the cold, which still should be a viable choice) but they haven't, and realistically you can't properly balance a Heavy Bolter, a Lascannon, a Multi-Melta and a Missile Launcher against one another just on stats - aiming for reasonably good balance between the profiles and then adjusting with points is by far a better method, because it allows for incremental adjustment that purely profile adjustments can't target.

 

54 minutes ago, Xenith said:

Previously, some units didn't have worthwhile upgrades, so you take them naked, however the new optimal is with wargear. It's a new way of approaching the game that requires a shift in mindset.

If an option was never taken because it wasn't worth the cost...then they made a mistake. Getting rid of all wargear points is a ridiculous scorched earth policy to take to that kind of issue. If they want people to take the options then they need to be worthwhile, not just "might as well, they're literally better than the other options because they cost the same."

 

Would you ever take a Predator without a Hunter-killer and Storm Bolter in 10th? If no, you're literally making your tank weaker, not necessarily by tons, but your tank is objectively worse than the Predator with both upgrades even though they cost the same. From a balancing perspective, this is just poor design: this is exactly why late 9th Ed Sternguard exploded in popularity, because of course a 20pt model with a Plasma Gun (and a stapled on Bolter) are way better than an 18pt model with just a Bolter!

 

Grav Guns were poor in 8th/9th, because generally Plasma Guns were always better (especially in 8th). This is less so in 10th because they've reduced the efficacy of Plasma vs tougher targets (which is generally a good thing), but Grav Guns are still fairly lacklustre - and the fact that they cost the same as Plasma Guns is still damaging to them. While you're right that there's always an optimal selection in someway, reducing granularity does not help this situation in any way.

 

It's not a new way of approaching the game, it's just lazy design.

[Interrogator Stobz]

Well lets look:

A HB reliably kills one Marine (3x.66x.66x.5 D2) and ~50ish% chance of two, and does diddly Squat against multi wound T9 vehicles (3x.66x.17x.5 D2) ~33ish% of mere 2D.

 

A Lascannon semi reliably kills only one Marine (just under 50%) and can damage T10 vehicles (~36% D6+1).

 

They are not the same but do have different uses.

 

Now Bolt pistol vs Plasma difference is far more pronounced. 

That needs no maths.

 

When sometimes is obviously better and is spammed is where the true discrepancies come in.

Imbalances do not scale well.

 

[Cpt.Danjou]

Hmmm points does not matter*? Ok lets see, and compare two units from 9th and 10th that I have been using in both editions. CSM Havocs and Predators, in the 9th edition a 4 man lascannon squad with mark of Slaanesh cost 170 points, while an Undivided squad with HB cost 130. That is about 40 points in difference. A 10th edition Havoc squad cost 135. A predator with extra lascannons cost 20 points more than a bare one in the 9th edition, and a predator in 10th cost 130, and I would not want to imagine what a predator with MoN would cost in 9th. Together they are adding up points. But what if I used more than one of those units will that change anything? Of course it will, now I have loads more points, and I can buy even more units. It is silly arguing that a plasma gun or a flamer for 5 points does not  matter, it does because, the squads are not there in a vacuum, in a 2k match everything adds up and a lot of small points can add up to more squads. 

 

One big problem with the game right now is not the core rules, they are ok, but that the devs has not understood the impact of certain decisions they made, the game is built around movement these days, so when certain units gets a reduced movement they get even more nerfed than what is expected. Two of the bottom armies now are slow Dg, LoV. A friend of mine that plays 1k sons (without Magnus and Vortex beast), struggles getting on objectives with his slow Terminators and Rubrics. He has not won one match during 10th. Sure he can change around the list, get Magnus, and vortex beasts. but the problem with the basic troops in his army is slow, and that you are forced to take certain things to stand a chance. I play DG, so I know how bad the basic troops are, I do win with them, because my list has 2 PM units and 1 warlord that are true DG, the rest of the list is based around predators, helbrutes and Rhinos. Is this a DG list? No it is a CSM list with a slight taste of DG, because a DG list does not use their iconic units as they can't reach objectives without getting obliterated.

Toughness is a minor problem today, when every unit and their grandmother has lethal hits. I have seen a greater daemons loose 2/3 rd of its wounds in one phase due to two CSM cultists and a helbrute, that is 20+ shots per each cultist unit, with lethal hits, and sustained hits, the only thing that makes the GD stay up is the armour save, not toughness. So the increased Dg toughness does not matter at all. Yay Dg terminators has T6, but they have a movement of 4, they will not reach an objective, and many units will dance around them

 

Today we have some armies that are fun and playable, CSM is one, not many units are "bad", and you can take whatever you want and still have a chance of winning, but LoV and Eldar are in a bad position, Eldar is not great because they don't have that many units that are used, except the cookie cutter builds, and LoV are slow, bad at shooting and crap in melee. Reducing or increasing points will not help that much. Is it ok if Fire prisms and Wraith knights get twice as expensive? No because then Eldar will be more or less unplayable. How cheap can PM and Blightlords be till they are something you want to bring, half the points, a third? Does LoV units need a point reduction? Maybe. But they should be changed in a fundamental way, when it comes to the rules and stats to make them playable. Sure the LoV infantry should be slow, but they maybe should be able to hit a barn wall from the inside with their shooting.

 

The top armies, and the bottom armies should get a complete overhaul, and play tested by the worst munchkins you can find. And fan bois should not be be allowed to come close to the development of their favourite factions, let the developers playtest the army that they created for 30-50 matches against said munchkins, and if they don't have a win/loose ratio around 50%, move them to another army. Try to make most iconic faction specific units playable. Hearthkyn warriors sole role is not to be killed so the unit that kills them get a judgement token. Make the big guns struggle to kill horde armies, have two stats on them, one for SV3+ and one for Sv4+. A missile launcher has never been worse than this edition, but IRL tanks and vehicles really don't like to be shot by one, as their purpose is to kill vehicles and tanks. A lascannon, in my mind is used to large targets not far away infantry milling around quickly. And now some guys will say, but armour is so much better in the future, hey news flash, if armour gets better, the penetration of weapons get better, just pure logic.

 

Bring back the point system, this PL shenanigans is just silly, no one will ever take some things, and will always add other things. A CSM predator without, sponsons, Havoc missile launcher and combi weapon is unheard of these days, as you can always use them to potshot things with them. Last match I killed a couple of terminators with them. Havocs will never take missile launcher when Lascannons are the same cost, Havocs are rarely brought to kill hordes, CSM has so much other things to take care of that issue. Make one army the  "standard", Astartes is the most logic one, and build the other armies around it if an army is to powerful or to weak against them, they need a nerf or a buff.

 

I have used CSM as an example, as it is the army I know best, and I see few flaws in it, good detachment rules, several good units that are interchangeable, and characters that makes them both good and fluffy. Plus 5 of its stratagems are usable. They might not be the best army, but it is not bad either were it stands today.

 

Cpt.Danjou

[phandaal]

3 hours ago, Kallas said:

Are you high? This change was pretty widely lambasted because it threw balance out the window. Yes, it helped some of the worse performing factions, but it also threw out a ton of internal balance in the process - eg, Sternguard went from garbage to auto-include because they got like 10pts free; but then their internal faction competition got shafted by comparison; why would you ever take basic Intercessors or Tacticals for like 2pts less, when you could have free Combi-Weapons and extra Attacks on the Sternguard?

 

This is not the argument you think it is...

 

Free wargear for Space Marines did exactly what people said it would do.

 

Some of us did the math beforehand to show just how much free stuff a unit of Deathwing Terminators would get, for example. Then as it turned out, some units did in fact have a gigantic power boost over their "basic" loadout, and it threw balance out the window.

 

Apparently this can work in a system designed from the ground up for it, or so people say with Age of Sigmar. However, I cannot think of another game right now where any kind of gear you want to give a unit is just a freebie. Even drastically simplified games that really do have streamlined army construction rules still have costs attached to different gear options.

[Xenith]

 

3 hours ago, Interrogator Stobz said:

Now Bolt pistol vs Plasma difference is far more pronounced. 

That needs no maths.

 

When sometimes is obviously better and is spammed is where the true discrepancies come in.

 

Looking at the inverse, I can equip each model in my death company with a plasma pistol, replacing their bolt pistol. In previous editions I chose to spam the bolt pistol because the plasma pistol model was too expensive for the return, and the bolt pistol model ws more efficient. This is not the case now, where the plasma pistol is more efficient. 

 

I agree that the issue could be solved by the better pricing of plasma pistols...however you can also just make them all free and whatever option is the most efficient will inevitably rise to the top again, in the same way it does when the options have a point cost attached. One of the options requires a deep dive into the unit and opportunity cost of the weapon upgrade, and requires a lot more man hours to do. The other doesn't. While it feels bad, the end result is the same, in that there is one 'most efficient' option. 

 

Re: The above - when that 'optimal loadout' of a DWT appears, or any other unit, and that unit starts dominating tables, then that unit will get a point increase. Is it perfect? No. 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Xenith

[Kallas]

23 minutes ago, Xenith said:

however you can also just make them all free and whatever option is the most efficient will inevitably rise to the top again, in the same way it does when the options have a point cost attached.

The issue is one of degrees.

 

Sure, one will always be more efficient, but with points and an actual attempt to balance options you can make the difference between options narrower, which leads to people feeling less bad about running the weaker option.

[Ahzek451]

28 minutes ago, Xenith said:

 

 

 

 

I agree that the issue could be solved by the better pricing of plasma pistols...however you can also just make them all free and whatever option is the most efficient will inevitably rise to the top again, in the same way it does when the options have a point cost attached. One of the options requires a deep dive into the unit and opportunity cost of the weapon upgrade, and requires a lot more man hours to do. The other doesn't. While it feels bad, the end result is the same, in that there is one 'most efficient' option. 

You said the end result is the same, I would argue that in a way it is worse. With points, a player may still decide if the cost for the "better" weapon is worth it, having one or more units with bare bones and a third with the points spent on better gear. At least you had the chance to see said option, granted it depends on if GW pointed them efficiently. Currently, there is zero to very little incentive to take the "weaker" options.  IMHO it appears to be 2 equally crappy problems on each side of a coin. Either...you spend the time and effort to re-write weapon rules/stats to make each option more appealing, or you spend the effort to manage point costs on options. Either way, you have to spend effort to help incentivise diversity in choice. 

GW has pointed out that there are weapon options, taken for certain cases. In same cases this is true. But as pointed out above, GW has a problem being consistant in this regard. There are some weapon options that are plainly better no matter who you face. 

It's a sticky situtation, and I do not envy anyone with the task to help balance weapon option diversity. But frankly, with the drop of points it feels like GW just ran out of time and gave up on this one. It feels silly to even see options for rhinos. If this is the path forward, then just give them hunter killers/havocs by default. 

 

[LSM]

1 hour ago, phandaal said:

...Apparently this can work in a system designed from the ground up for it, or so people say with Age of Sigmar. However, I cannot think of another game right now where any kind of gear you want to give a unit is just a freebie. Even drastically simplified games that really do have streamlined army construction rules still have costs attached to different gear options.

 

Yeah. Specifically Age of Sigmar was built off of WHFB kits.

 

And a unit in WHFB would be ~10+ [models] for [x] pts/model, where the only options would be for every model to take [spears/halberds/great weapons] for [+1/2] pts/model, and a Champion, Standard Bearer, and Musician (which were generally worth taking for their points, as force multipliers for the entire unit).

 

They'd be sold as sprues of ~10 models, with enough [hand weapons/spears/etc] to kit out the unit with all of an option, and have the bits to make the command trio.

 

That transitioned well to Power Levels. Instead of a Spear being a flat upgrade, it can have slightly different stats for a slightly different role. There are still situations where one option is better than another, but there aren't situations where, for example, a Hand Weapon is inferior in every way to a Spear (like a Bolt Pistol is to a Plasma Pistol). Musicians and Standards can just be 1-in-10.

 

You didn't have units like Plague Marines - whose instructions have 28 potential build options (with 25 different resulting rules in 10th) for seven models. An egregious example to be sure, but really highlights how PL just doesn't work for a bunch of existing kits.

 

 

[Rogue]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

Sure, one will always be more efficient, but with points and an actual attempt to balance options you can make the difference between options narrower, which leads to people feeling less bad about running the weaker option.

 

But why do you want to run the weaker option?

 

It feels a bit like lots of the arguments here (not you, Kallas, specifically) are fixating on "But what if I want to run a weak option?"

 

Whereas I suspect that question is better framed in terms of tactical advantage. I used to run bare minimum acolytes (45 points for 5, I think), because I perceived that to be the optimal tactical solution for a specific role (dropping on out-of-the-way objectives as cheaply as possible). I didn't take them because they were weaker; I took them because they did what I needed them to do.

 

Fair enough, there were times when I would have liked to fit in more models, or more big guns or drills into a unit, but I didn't because I felt like I gained more of a tactical advantage by using those points elsewhere in some way.

 

Now, we might be someone who values narrative fluff over competitive crunch, and so we take 'weaker' units for that reason. But again, we're not picking them because they're weak, but because they fit our idea of what our army should look or feel like. We're probably compromising ourself competitively, but we've already said that competitive wasn't our primary objective here.

 

And yes, it might be ideal to have an army that completely inhabits the fluff whilst providing perfectly balanced crunch, but that's vanishingly unlikely, not least because your idea of the fluff might be very different to mine.

 

In short, options aren't weak if they offer a perceived tactical (or narrative) advantage. And if they don't do either, why are we fighting so hard to take them? 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rogue
Still learning to spell, apparently.

[Captain Idaho]

Yeah I'd like to take the "weaker" option because it looks cool, is thematic or I want variance. In a granular points system I won't be punished for this.

 

This forum is called the Bolter and Chainsword, not plasma pistol and power sword, after all... 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Captain Idaho

[phandaal]

"Inferno Pistol and Power Fist" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[Rogue]

Quote

I'd like to take the "weaker" option because it looks cool, is thematic or I want variance. In a granular points system I won't be punished for this.

 

That's fair.

 

But it still feels a bit like you're making a decision based on non-competitive values, and then assessing that decision from competitive point of view.

 

Either is fine, but having both is trickier :)

 

That said, I'm not against points values at all - I like the nuance and the list-wrangling and all that. My feeling is simply that power levels aren't the end of the world. But I do think they're more polarising - it's harder to sustain narrative and competitive at the same time whilst getting equal value out of both.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rogue
Added the quote for clarity

[Rain]

48 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

That's fair.

 

But it still feels a bit like you're making a decision based on non-competitive values, and then assessing that decision from competitive point of view.

 

Either is fine, but having both is trickier :)

 

That said, I'm not against points values at all - I like the nuance and the list-wrangling and all that. My feeling is simply that power levels aren't the end of the world. But I do think they're more polarising - it's harder to sustain narrative and competitive at the same time whilst getting equal value out of both.

 

 

It's largely emotional, but that does not mean that it is not important. There's a fair bit of study that almost all human decision making is emotional, even when we work very hard to convince ourselves otherwise, as emotions are very powerful drivers of behavior, and the brain is not a computer. Without going too far afield, the idea as applied to 40k is that it "feels bad" to be "punished" for giving your unit leader a bolt pistol because you thought it looked cool, and it's an option that the game gives you. Before, you had a compensating differential in points. Granted you can say that those points were inconsequential, but (a.) individually inconsequential increments add up to consequential ones; and (b.) it felt like a choice, and not just a mistake.

 

You can say that it's irrational, but that doesn't make it feel better. Games should not make their players feel bad unnecessarily. Yes, losing can feel bad too, but that's a necessary element for a competitive game to work. Giving a player an option that is a "trap" with a strictly better alternative is an unnecessary source of frustration. At that point just abstract it to "Sergeant Pistol" and "Sergeant Weapon" as a previous Frater in this thread suggested, and abstract the unit weapons to "Tactical Weapons" or whatever. They did this with many weapons already (e.g. Accursed Weapons on Chaos Terminators) and I like it. Lets me model whatever kinds of weapons I want without the choices being "wrong."

Edited September 5, 2023 by Rain

[DemonGSides]

With the wailing and gnashing of teeth that went down here after it was revealed what had changed with combi weapons and with melta, I think there'd be a literal bloodbath around here if they went so far as to abstract the guns even more.

[Rogue]

1 hour ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah I'd like to take the "weaker" option because it looks cool, is thematic or I want variance. In a granular points system I won't be punished for this.

 

Just had a washing-up thought: this cuts both ways.

 

Let's say I like taking icons in my units because it looks cool, even if their in-game effect is rubbish. Or I like having units leaders as tooled up as possible, even if they're never planning to get within pistol range and will die long before getting to use their awesome-looking power sword.

 

In a granular point system, I get punished for making those decisions, paying a premium on every unit for wargear that has little practical value. Whereas in a power level system, I can take all the cool things for free (and yes, all the powerful things too - but for now, let's imagine that I'm just interested in fluffy and cool).

 

In this instance, it's power levels that are enabling cool, thematic and interesting choices.

[OldWherewolf]

16 hours ago, crimsondave said:

Power level is a problem.

 

Example 8th guard squad.

 

4 points per

10 bare bones 40 points.

10 loaded (from memory, maybe not exact) plasma, lascannon, plasma pistol, vox was @ 75 points.

 

14 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

They did it for marines, which allowed some of them to compete with other factions that were already good. And it resulted in competitive lists adding an extra 500-800 points in some cases, so all those 5 point differences added up across the board. 

 

Even speaking 10th, some stuff is objectively an upgrade. Crisis suits with 2 more wounds than their starting profile are way better than....their base profile. Or having 4 more str 5 bs5 shots.

 

14 hours ago, The Unseen said:

 

It absolutely was NOT the best balance time.

I, and plenty of other people, at the competitive level, did in fact take chainsword DC. You took 1 squad of hammers, sure, but a 2nd squad was often run with just chainswords because if your opponent screened out the hammer wielders with infantry, you could then send in the chainsword squad and have them pick up a screening unit and then consolidate into another one, turning into a giant bump in the road PITA for armies that didn't have a lot of FLY. Because they were disposable because they were cheap enough. Whereas the hammer squad was literally almost twice the price and you wouldn't waste them like that.

And now chainsword DC may as well just not exist, because running them is actively detrimental, because your paying for all fists and inferno pistols. Power Level is bad, literally no one used it, even the most casual players, because it sucked; GW's own bloody community surveys showed that almost no-one actually used PL. So they decided that they would *MAKE* people use it.

 

Exactly.  The point you're missing is that in all these cases, the unit couldn't do it's job for it's points, and the points for individual wargear didn't make a difference. 

 

Case 1:  Guard infantry was waaay overpriced with wargear, so you didn't take the wargear, relegating infantry to just screening.  It's the same problem Guard infantry have now. 

 

Case 2:  Marines were waaayyy overpriced for what they could do and 5-800 points of individually priced wargear didn't help!  Free WG (e.g. PL) allowed people to pick the best option(s) for what they wanted the unit to do.  And once the points were on parity with job function, the win rate went way up.

 

Case 3:  You still took DC with TH because it was the best unit for the job with it's overall points cost.  The DC with Chainswords could have been replaced with Assault squads, Vanguard Vets or (gasp!) Sang Guard!  And they would have been replaced if the Assault Squad & VVs would have been better priced, and Sang Guard didn't have the RO3.

 

[Kallas]

33 minutes ago, Rogue said:

Just had a washing-up thought: this cuts both ways.

Yes, but the difference is that with granular points you have more levers to adjust with. With current 10th profiles, if you have a dud weapon profile, you're likely stuck with it until 11th (or, if you're 'lucky', a late edition Codex) since GW apparently doesn't want to change datasheets very much (half defeating the point of having digital availability). With granular points, if your fixed profile is not up to par with the other option(s), you can adjust the points to make it more viable or make the other option less attractive.

 

As I said earlier, it's not about hitting that Perfect Balance nail on the head (I think pretty much everyone can agree that's an unrealistic goal) but striving for better balance is a reasonable goal, even if it's not quite perfect.

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Rogue said:

 

That's fair.

 

But it still feels a bit like you're making a decision based on non-competitive values, and then assessing that decision from competitive point of view.

 

Either is fine, but having both is trickier :)

 

That said, I'm not against points values at all - I like the nuance and the list-wrangling and all that. My feeling is simply that power levels aren't the end of the world. But I do think they're more polarising - it's harder to sustain narrative and competitive at the same time whilst getting equal value out of both.

 

 

Good points. Can't deny them, except to say the game is more nuanced for many. I like a competitive game and attend tournaments but I do so with my themed lists. Such things are hard enough to win with as is without me being punished for certain themes 

 

Choose a better theme... yes I've heard it before!

[The Unseen]

37 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

Just had a washing-up thought: this cuts both ways.

 

Let's say I like taking icons in my units because it looks cool, even if their in-game effect is rubbish. Or I like having units leaders as tooled up as possible, even if they're never planning to get within pistol range and will die long before getting to use their awesome-looking power sword.

 

In a granular point system, I get punished for making those decisions, paying a premium on every unit for wargear that has little practical value. Whereas in a power level system, I can take all the cool things for free (and yes, all the powerful things too - but for now, let's imagine that I'm just interested in fluffy and cool).

 

In this instance, it's power levels that are enabling cool, thematic and interesting choices.

 

No, you got punished for those decisions because the wargear costs didn't accurately value the equipment. Which historically in GWs case they are indeed bad at it, but in 9th had finally come around to realizing special pistols weren't ever worth 15 pts for example. And some equipment should in fact probably be free. 

 

But this is the biggest example of throwing out the baby with the bathwater I've ever seen a modern company make. As now, unless stats are changed, there is *only* ever 1 loadout that is fairly costed, the one that previously would've been the most expensive. Because if you take less equipment or less powerful equipment, you're overpaying for the unit, BY DESIGN. You can't fix it without re-writing vast swathes of the weapons stats. Previously, those not-balanced wargear choices were a pts adjustment away. Now they functionally don't exist. There is no choice between a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol, unless deliberately making your units worse is something you consider a choice. If the bolt pistol was free and the plasma pistol was 4-5 pts, that's a choice. When a PP was 15, sure, it was the other way round and they functionally didn't exist. But it's a whole lot easier to adjust points costs than it is to redesign every goddamn weapon in the game.

 

[jaxom]

On 9/4/2023 at 11:29 AM, Rain said:

You give the BP more shots to make it better against hordes I guess. Bolt (machine) Pistol. But then you have to also balance that against various other options

On 9/4/2023 at 11:44 AM, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah, 3 shots per bolt pistol, or auto pistol etc. I could see that.

 

I think this is where @OldWherewolf is correct; one needs to look at purpose. A Sergeant or Captain has the option for a bolt pistol so it needs a meaningful purpose. Inferno pistol is anti-tank, plasma pistol is anti-heavy infantry, bolt pistol is anti-medium infantry, and hand flamer is anti-light infantry. From there it's looking at "does this bring the same value relative to its role?" A Sergeant/Captain Bolt Pistol could be 3A 4Str -1AP 1D while the hand flamer is 2+d6A 3Str 0AP 1D. Personally, I think that gives those two weapon good value relative to their role, but play testing would be ideal. Maybe the hand flamer needs to be 3+d3A or the bolt pistol needs -2AP or -1AP 2D. 

 

20 hours ago, OldWherewolf said:

Thirdly, PL is just fine.  It's not a question of whether this meltagun should be 5 points or 0 points, it's whether or not the unit can do it's job on the battlefield.  5 points  on a unit here and there only matters if you have points left over once you've determined the purpose of a unit in your army.  We take options based on if that option will contribute to the unit doing it's role.  Take a Chimera for example.  You ALWAYS take the turret HB.  Why?  Because the Multi-Laser can't do anything, much less it's job.  But that's largely irrelevant, because the point of a Chimera is a battle taxi, not a firepower platform.  Same for the LRBT with Battlecannon.  It doesn't matter if you take HBs or PCs, because the unit, with or without sponsons, can't do it's job.

 

This ends up being where I think there is value in talking about granular points. At the end of it a LRBT with sponsons can do more than a LRBT without sponsons; it can do its job and a bit extra. I think there are two options and it's a bit related to what truly makes AoS different regarding points. Let's just say a LRBT is 100 points and the sponsons (regardless of type) are 15 points. If I have 100 points left in an army I can squeeze in the LRBT. If the LRBT is 115 points because wargear is free and the sponsons are assumed to be taken then I can't fit it in. Maybe I can take out a 45 point character and then take the LRBT for 115, but now I have an army short by 30 points. In AoS, a player gets benefits when they have less points than their opponent. I can take a 1970-1985 point list and I'm not penalized for it.

 

4 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Yeah I'd like to take the "weaker" option because it looks cool, is thematic or I want variance. In a granular points system I won't be punished for this.

 

It's kind of funny, I was thinking about really simple ways to balance this without bespoke rules for each weapon. I came up with something like RELIABLE X: X times per game you can automatically wound your opponent if you hit. Why does the Colonel use his laspistol instead of a plasma pistol? Because it's never let him down when it mattered.

 

Connecting it back to the LRBT example, if one where to look at balancing it, adding +2" of Movement and/or an extra Wound (more engine space inside because no ammo, interior side armor where the sponson would go) would be another example of how each option has a benefit.

 

19 hours ago, Emperor Ming said:

Exactly and how in holy terra can a lascannon/similar other race anti tank weapon, be the same value as a heavy bolter

 

It makes no sense

I think this has two answers.

First, the value of a weapon is relative to the other "assumed" weapons in an army. Back in the day, if I have to take at least 10 Space Marines with Bolters, a heavy bolter is less valuable than a lascannon because the role of the heavy bolter is also covered by the bolters. Similarly, if I have an entire army with meltagun-armed troops as default, then an assault cannon or heavy bolter starts looking better to cover what the rest of the army can't do. This leads to the second point.

GW needs to re-evaluate the rules for anti-infantry weapon options. They haven't meaningfully changed them other than the heavy bolter going to 2D. A single flamer isn't different enough in its output compared to a bolter that it really changes what the unit can do, while it's obvious that adding plasma or melta or lascannon is a meaningful change. A lascannon can do about 1/6 of the wounds of many 12W tank in one turn. I think the equivalent for a flamer would be doing 1/6 the wounds on a 10 man Guard unit in one turn and that would require 6 hits where the current average is 3.5.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by jaxom
Fixed some grammar

[SkimaskMohawk]

2 hours ago, OldWherewolf said:

Case 2:  Marines were waaayyy overpriced for what they could do and 5-800 points of individually priced wargear didn't help!  Free WG (e.g. PL) allowed people to pick the best option(s) for what they wanted the unit to do.  And once the points were on parity with job function, the win rate went way up.

 

Hey so we just shifted the goalposts from "5 point savings don't add up to much" to "all the units weren't properly costed in their granular point iteration anyways and power solved it".

 

And what kind of further dissonance is going on?

 

"The points saved wasn't from compounding individual savings, it was from power balancing!" 

 

Like, what? We know exactly how many points got saved pre to post arks because of their individual costing. And the joke is, the power levels didn't change when the points did; it was more expensive to spam BT melta vehicles in power than it was in points. 

 

"Only the true points of units were revealed with power and let them do their function better".

 

Ya, funny how that only applied to units with more options right? Like the humble assault intercessors role stayed the same with their only options being on the srgt, but the tacs went from objective camper to midfield all purpose brawler; they were always meant to be better than their contemporaries.  

Edited September 5, 2023 by SkimaskMohawk

[Rogue]

2 hours ago, The Unseen said:

... there is *only* ever 1 loadout that is fairly costed, the one that previously would've been the most expensive. Because if you take less equipment or less powerful equipment, you're overpaying for the unit, BY DESIGN. 

 

This is where I disagree, I think. In some cases, yes - an acolyte can either have an auto-pistol or a hand-flamer as a sidearm; the hand-flamer is always better.

 

But you're really talking about upgrades here. In other places, there are real options. My neophytes can have seismic cannons or mining lasers. One is better into infantry, the other into armour. Both loadouts have value to me in different situations. Similarly, all of my special weapon options have value. You could argue that the value is uneven (fair enough), but it's very situational. Webbers aren't great into most targets, but are excellent (relatively) into heavy armour, if you can get within 12" to use them. If that's my plan, webbers can be pretty valuable. Personally, I see more value in flamers and grenades, but that's my choice.

 

But again, if your problem is that plasma pistols are better than bolt pistols for the same cost, why not just take plasma pistols? And if loading up on plasma pistols bothers you for whatever reason, then take bolt pistols instead. No-one is stopping you doing either.

[Schlitzaf]

And generally speaking all universal “superior” weapons aren’t actually all universally surperior. Give all you guys Lascannons. I have my black tide and be quite happy you did just that. Really whay I am actually hearing. Is that GW shoulf hiven “Naked” Squad Cost and “Upgraded” squad cost. My 2 cents.

[OldWherewolf]

7 hours ago, SkimaskMohawk said:

 

Hey so we just shifted the goalposts from "5 point savings don't add up to much" to "all the units weren't properly costed in their granular point iteration anyways and power solved it".

 

And what kind of further dissonance is going on?

 

"The points saved wasn't from compounding individual savings, it was from power balancing!" 

 

Like, what? We know exactly how many points got saved pre to post arks because of their individual costing. And the joke is, the power levels didn't change when the points did; it was more expensive to spam BT melta vehicles in power than it was in points. 

 

"Only the true points of units were revealed with power and let them do their function better".

 

Ya, funny how that only applied to units with more options right? Like the humble assault intercessors role stayed the same with their only options being on the srgt, but the tacs went from objective camper to midfield all purpose brawler; they were always meant to be better than their contemporaries.  

None whatsoever.  The discussion is those who think 5 points here and there make all the difference (one-quarter of 1% of a 2K game).  What I'm saying is looking at the micro scale doesn't matter until the macro scale is solved.  5 points on a Meltagun didn't matter.   It took five to eight HUNDRED points (25-33%) to matter. 

 

Right now, the macro scale across the game is busted.  GW is 6 feet under and I really don't believe for 1 second that breaking out the sugar spoons will help.  They need to break out the back hoe.

 

And it didn't matter for those units with more options.  The difference is that the Assault Intercessors didn't get the macro-level adjustment they needed to be competitive once the other units got their macro-level adjustment.  The intercessors were only worth ~14ppm, not ~20ppm.  Five points on a power weapon didn't make a difference, it took over 5 points per model, or a 25% difference in the unit before the unit would start performing.  And then that 25% adjustment had to be done across multiple units (not models, not wargear) before things got close.