The eldar revenant titan, just the name brings to mind images of death and destruction almost too terrible to comprehend. But, is that thought as justified as some would think? I'm going to break down the beast and see how it ACTUALLY compares to other monsters in its category to see where its points lie.
Armor value 12/12/10 when you look at these numbers, you think medium tank, maybe heavy skimmer. You certainly aren't thinking 9 hullpoints superheavy walker. The primary defense the revenant has is the eldar titan holofield. The holofield is the only thing in the game that stops a 6 on the destroyer table because it actually negates the original hit. It is a 50% chance (if the revenant moved, 33% otherwise) of negating anything in the game. In the old vehicle design rules, it worked differently but it costed 25 points per facing meaning the current rendition is 100 points. If you spent those exact same points on improving the armor value it would be an av 14/13/13 walker, or if you spent it on hullpoints it would have 12. The survivability is in line with other giant robots in the game, so that can't be where the issue lies with it, lets look at weapons.
The pulsar is a strength D large blast that fires twice at 60". The revenant has two of them. It also has a str5 ap3 heavy 3 missile launcher for lesser targets. The pulsar is a primary weapon, which does nothing for it due to strD not rolling to pen. The primary benefit I see for the pulsar is there are no points wasted on its capability on your average table. Every other strength D titan class weapon has at least a 6foot range advantage on it. The weapon system it carries is designed to be at a disadvantage in truly epic games that would cover the floor of a large hall. On your average table every point spent by say a shadowsword to double that distance is wasted. That means the armament on the the revenant is actually balanced against every other weapon of its class in points, it just happens to be the most efficient option among them on a smaller table.
Now speed. We've seen that the revenant has a much shorter range then most of its counterparts, how does it actually challenge them in the big spaces they seem to all be designed for? The answer is the revenant jump jets. They allow the revenant to move 36" in a single bound, letting it close the gap and bring the fight to its enemies. The other thing it has for speed is the agile rule, which allows it to forgo some shooting that turn to run once or twice depending on how many shots you sacrifice. The issue is it also allows support elements to retaliate. Again, bringing the need for better defense by way of holofield back to the fore. so the blinding speed of the revenant is actually the way it counters the other giant robots in its class' range advantage in the giant games it was originally designed to play in, but on your average table it can actually allow it to simply leap away from its primary counter in smaller games, melee units
To break it down, I will show (with my vehicle design rules) where its points are actually spent.
Armor value: 30 points
9 hullpoints superheavy walker (with all that entails): 200 points
Titan holofield: 100 points
Two pulsars: 185 points each
Revenant missile launcher: 20 points
Revenant jumpjets: 165 points
Agile: 15 points
Making the revenant 900 points. On a battlefield larger than 12 feet accross, against other giant units you will see how balanced the revenant is in regards to points. It is simply the fact that it's weaknesses don't exist on an average sized table.
I think that I have told 2 separate Eldar players at two different stores to go away when they suggested an 1850 game and then after about 15-30 minutes of setup pulled out that titan and sat it on the table.
They shouldn't be allowed to play on an average board for the obvious reasons that they are the absolute BEST unit in the game on a standard board. I have never seen a titan battle on a larger board but im sure that it is balanced somehow, but I really wouldn't care to play that style of game since my biggest unit is my Morkanaut.
I have 2 of them ask other guy if he feels like taking 1 on ( they only come out for Apoc or Campign games) Some time i get people wanting to take both them on.
Really it's the way the holoshield works in my opinion, perhaps the speed it can move as well. If you give it another save, they stack because of the way it does so it would have 2 chances to negate damage. Besides that it's sort of overhyped.
The thing about the titan is if you can manage (this is where its speed makes it strong as well) to get it into combat with anything with reasonable durability then it's stuck there until it dies for the rest of the game. Honestly I'd never use mine unless it was the only thing I was fielding and my opponent knew or we all agreed to play apoc. It belongs in fights with stuff like warhounds, thunderhawks, and where knights are the cannon fodder.
That's the thing, superheavies of this size weren't designed for the table size we normally play on. Making most of them inefficient on that size table. The revenant has rules to allow it to compete with similar units by using speed to mitigate its relatively short range. On small tables those things are more potent because the range is already limited by game space.
The revenant isn't undercosted, it just shouldn't be on smaller tables. It gives the illusion of being stronger than its points would suggest.
So, you're saying that units that were originally intended for Apocalypse games are overpowered in standard 40k? That's been known for awhile. Warhound Titans are a good example of this too.
But warhounds are balanced. You just need one of your own, invisibility going off and the opposing hounde dies turn 2. Seems balanced. Probably the same with the eldar titan, no I can't say it with a stright face. 5 people with recast titans almost killed the community in my city, and ended with an outright ban on anything FW or escalation. Still didn't bring back the 40+people that left though.
Warhound titans with the double barrel turbolaser destructors are actually 200 points undercosted.
The point is was trying to make is that the revenant is the only titan level unit in the game that isn't wasting points due to table size. That makes it appear stronger than its contemporaries in normal games. All of the units out there follow the same math for survivability, some are given points adjustments based on weaponry. When you use the volcano cannon from the shadowsword as the baseline for all blast level strD in the game you find the point of reference needed for balancing all of that class of weapon.
It makes it more efficient. That's all. It pays for every ability it has, nowhere does it seem to have a points discrepancy with other similar costed units. If something pays the proper amount of points for toughness 7 I have no issue with it being a viable counter to strength 3.
The issue actually lies in some other units paying for range they don't need. If you want a quick and dirty fix, subtract 7 points from a unit for every foot the weapon has of range beyond 6. Do that for every weapon and you'll see much better mileage of points from things like the hydra and basilisk.
Titans can be brought down by lucky lists with lots of good anti tank MSU.
I played against a revenant titan and killed it with my orks, but I would not enjoy to play against it more then once a year.
The reason for the thread all of the sudden was someone mentioned the revenant as op in another thread so I decided to check it again.
The only time something can be overpowered or too weak is when it is mathematically skewed one way or another. The wraithknight is overpowered because it is not paying for the survivability it brings to the table, for example. Add 100 points and it isn't as big a deal anymore.
The issue with the revenant is it is built in a way that makes it viable on the table size we normally use, as such it is the most powerful (points wise) unit in that category making it incredibly efficient in a normal game of 40k. Drop the D weapons to doing d3+3 hullpoints/wounds on a 6 and it will no longer trump all of the other superheavies that are competing on the the small table with it due to a lucky die roll.
So, it's not OP if you house rule D weapons? That still doesn't mean it's not OP. You're talking a lot of hypotheticals that do not apply to the realities of 40k.
It is not op period. If you did want to tone down the carnage big monsters like this bring you could use the aforementioned fix for strength D to allow the big boys a chance to survive the enemies first salvo. That's the only thing that would be a viable fix.
A 900 point unit SHOULD do the kind of damage the revenant is capable of, it's 900 points. Literally half of an 1850 point list.
I don't think you've thought this through in an impartial way.
If the holofields gave it an invuln save i'd agree - but that mechanic of potentially ingoring any ranged attack from any position as well as having cover saves afterwards is truly absurd.
I'm coming at this argument from the perspective of owning a warhound titan with a plasma blastgun and a TBTLD - potent and fluffy.
I was pleased to see that in 30k my 2 void shields don't have a minimum range anymore and now i can roll a dice for each lost shield at the end of the turn to get it back up on a 5+ - can you see how potent your holo-fields are now?
They cannot be avoided, they will never collapse (even when hit and damaged!) and work against everything with equal effectiveness.
There isn't even a mechanic to show that if your enemies forces saturate the area with fire they can work out which image of that titan is real for a turn!
I think that it should be re-named 'Eldar Titan Stupefaction Field' where even superhuman legion astartes can't seem to work out which image is real despite watching shots ping off/go through it, while standing next to the thing.
It's almost like a high tier world of war ships battleship, granted a team of lower cruisers could kill it with torps, destroyer smoke screens and us cruisers doing fast gun runs but it would not be much fun and the battleship would spend the game one shotting the smaller ships as they have to dodge all the hits.
Some things are just too big and powerful for a normal game.
Making the revenant 900 points. On a battlefield larger than 12 feet accross, against other giant units you will see how balanced the revenant is in regards to points. It is simply the fact that it's weaknesses don't exist on an average sized table.
So, what do you think?
So if I double the size of my gaming table (which I can't because I live in a house, not a warehouse), bring other equally overpowered equivalents like a Reaver Titan, and play an enormous battle, the Revenant *might* balance itself out?
The speed is the killer - shooting 2 different targets with the D weapons then firing missiles at a third you intend to charge (and stomp!) is nuts! Then, unlike the warhound, if you corner it, it can just jump away - meaning it tends to only be engaged by units it wants to be engaged by.
Combined with holofields, a skyshield and a nearby farseer with fortune or (heaven forbid) invisibility and the game becomes pointless at sub 5k.
I tabled a 3k guard list with a single revenant on a 8x6 table against 3 IG super heavies and half a dozen russ after he said he thought he could take it - and I did not run it with the skyshield or farseer. He is building a reaver right now for our next game at 10k against my pair of revenants and he still says he does not like his chances!
Eldar titan holofield is 100 points, voidshields are only 35. Titan holofield will stop half of the shots thrown at it, the two voidshields will stop two guaranteed.
The revenant was made with huge space and other equally powerful units in mind. It is a giant bully in a normal game, that doesn't mean it isn't paying points for the ability to do so.
As for the other saves, it would have to be a HUGE piece of terrain to give cover, and anyone fielding it on a skyshield landing pad would have a hard time getting me to believe it is moving to get the 4++. As for the psychic defense available, every superheavy in the game besides the necron, tau, and ork ones have access to the same chance.
8x6 doesn't cut it table size in a titan level fight. 6x12 if you deploy on the the short edges will. If you play that scenario with the imperial guard again, try making the 6 result a d3+3 instead. Strength D needs toned down a bit, but that is true of all strength D in the game.
What he is saying is that GW priced the Revenant based on the assumption of a large playing space, and that if that condition is met then the Revenant is fairly priced.
Not that the Revenant is fairly priced in some absolute sense, or in the conditions of a standard game. (Jump troop infantry aren't either.)
Now you're being flippant - Eldar titan holofield can never be taken down by small arms fire, a player who isn't ignorant of thier own rules will move the thing 1" because all the rule asks for is 'moved' not moved by a certain distance and applying your own percieved points values to existing profiles is merely trying to distract the rebuttals from the fact that giving the reveneant titan extra distance before the opposition can get to them is a tactical advantage FOR it.
To take on your argument about the amount of shots each method can take - its going to be two thirds of ALL shooting directed at it which will do nothing, so taking three shots at it will negate the same amount as the warhounds fully functional void shields, but your holo-fields are still working afterwards.
Being able to restore void shields is a one in three chance and anyone with a head still attached will use small arms fire to take out the void shields and then aim the 'D' at the now unprotected warhound. Assuming the warhound survives, it [just becomes easier to make it unprotected.
I remember we once played a 6k a side game, and the eldar player brought a Titan.
The rest of us didn't have to do much the whole game, the Titan just cleaned up shop. This was using 6th edition D weapons. And it was just for fun, it was a horriblly one sided affair.
The run from agile is before shooting. And the revenant paid 165 points for the mobility it has.
I wasn't attempting to be flippant, and I didn't just put arbitrary numbers on the revenant titan. I updated and fixed the 4th edition build a vehicle and monster design rules. I was actually able to categorize the survivability granted by toughness, wounds, speed, av, and hull points. This let me figure out the points totals of weapon loadout. I then used the shadowsword's volcano cannon as the baseline point total for large blast strenght D and went on to balance all of the others against that.
The revenant's guns have twice the shots, but half the range. If they were at the maximum range of the storm sword, the titan would take 2-3 unanswered shots before it hopefully destroys the tank.
The warhound is perfectly capable of killing the revenant. This is a titan level D weapon fight, with the core rules either one could kill the other with a single salvo and with the range advantage of the warhound it would get the first 2 rounds of shots in in a vacuum.
If the price point for all superheavy vehicles were dropped to a level appropriate for normal table size the revenant would be tame in comparison.
I'm sorry to say this but your fan created VDRs don't really hold much water during discussions about the comparative effectiveness of various units. They aren't official, most people don't know about/don't use them and they may be very biased. Maybe something you weigh heavily isn't as effective as you think it is or something you think isn't effective is in some unforeseen situations. Bottom line is that if you want to convince people that the Revenant titan isn't OP using rules you made up isn't a good way to do it.
Titans in general are, in my opinion, a little over the top for general gaming regardless of type. Now setting something up before hand so your opponent is prepared to face a Titan is one thing, but just dropping one on the table as a "Surprise!" thing is rather a TFG move in my ever so humble opinion.
They're a different class of weapon. In real world terms you don't carry a Glock and expect to take on a Humvee with with a .50 cal machine gun mounted to the cupola and expect to have a snowballs chance in hell of victory. One of these things is not like the other.
I own one Imperial Knight (still in box, will be building it later this year or just after the first of the year next year). That will be the largest model I own for 40k, and is my 'response' for big things such as Wraithknights and other large models. I love the model and look forward to getting it built and painted up soon.
If folks want to run a Revenant, or Warhound, or similarly sized vehicle/unit, that's fine. I just personally won't be playing against that person as I don't feel like getting hammered for 5+ turns (if that long) and not having any chance of doing anything meaningful. Eldar are already a powerful enough army on their own before you factor in titans or other similarly powerful units. Though, if I set up a game ahead of time and *know* I'm going to be fighting said titan or large unit and can prepare to fight against it (agreeing to do so with my opponent) then I have no issue playing against it.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'm sorry to say this but your fan created VDRs don't really hold much water during discussions about the comparative effectiveness of various units. They aren't official, most people don't know about/don't use them and they may be very biased. Maybe something you weigh heavily isn't as effective as you think it is or something you think isn't effective is in some unforeseen situations. Bottom line is that if you want to convince people that the Revenant titan isn't OP using rules you made up isn't a good way to do it.
I respect your opinion here, I can't expect to convince you via a discussion about the validity of my vdr. But what I will say is that every other superheavy and gargantuan creature that has been decried as too strong or too weak that I have put through this ruleset I've been able to give not only the point total that it would be to make it balanced, but also what exactly would need to be added to make it worth the points spent on it.
I've spent 9 months building and refining the v/mcdr, with public feedback and hundreds of hours ensuring the points held within it aren't skewed one way or another. I can tell you that ork transports are all overcosted by the transport capacity number, and that the killakans don't get any point discount for their cowardly grots rule. I can tell you that tyranid monstrous creatures actually pay upwards of 20 points for their instinctive behavior rule, and the synapse and shadows of the warp are a 20 point upgrade. Imperial armies don't pay for the tank rule on their vehicles where xenos do. I can tell you that battlefocus is only a 10 point upgrade for walkers, and that eldar can't make a vehicle with an armor value above 12 unless it has at least 21 hullpoints.
I can tell you all of this, and all I'm really doing is farting in the wind because you have no reason to believe me. If you don't agree with the points I presented earlier in the thread, how many points would you say each of those things are worth? Is 165 points too cheap for almost flyer level speed? Are the eldar holofield really not worth more than three times imperial voidshields? Consider the fact that the weapons used solely to drop the shields actually threaten the revenant where they cannot possibly hurt the warhound. How much more do you think the pulsars are worth? 185 per gun doesn't seem unreasonable considering the two are worth as much combined as some other superheavy vehicles.
Help prove me wrong, use the rules linked in my signature, show me where things are broken and I am always willing to fix it. I am getting close to sending it to games workshop to see what they think, I want it to be so tight they can't help but take a closer look and maybe stop doing things that break the game. (A boy can hope...)
Tried warhound + 3 knights vs. various lists last weekend. Not as unbalanced as you'd think. Not the most amazing of games, but still, there's more to it than many realise (but to be quite frank, the average play level in 40K is... suboptimal).
zerosignal wrote: Tried warhound + 3 knights vs. various lists last weekend. Not as unbalanced as you'd think. Not the most amazing of games, but still, there's more to it than many realise (but to be quite frank, the average play level in 40K is... suboptimal).
Sounds like either a nightmare to play against or just really boring.
A warhound killing a revenant titan relies on a fair amount of luck (two sixes on the d chart or one six and then another on the hull point removal) and rather poor luck on the part of the eldar player (only 1's and 2's for holofield rolls) - not to mention the imperial player getting first turn and the eldar player making large tactical errors.
With my setup (single TBTLD) the holofield will statistically take both of them; thats assuming that both my TBTLD shots hit which is tricky given how thin and spindly the revenant is - no such problems against imperial titans because of thier bulk.
In order for the revenant to be within range of the warhound and not having enough range itself requires the table to be just over 8 foot long because thats the maximum range of a TBTLD (96") the eldar pulsar range is 60".
It can move 36", run and then fire it's remaining pulsar - so even when the revenant has ended up outside the warhound's maximum range, the revenant can get first shot on it in it's turn.
The other option is that your deployment zone is only ever 24" away from the enemies - so if you put your revenant on the leading edge of your deployment zone the table would need to be 168" long to allow the mentioned scenario to occurr - thats Fourteen Feet Long!!! perhaps even longer if you account for the warhounds 12" movement.
Holofield don't stop two thirds of the incoming fire. If it doesn't move, then a one or two denies the shot. If it moves then a 1-3 does. It works in the opposite scale of saves but most people seem to not realize it. At best the holofield will only stop half of the shots directed at it and that is only if it had a chance to move.
That may be why you believe it to be overpowered, someone has been cheating with the rules/ read it wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the revenant only has 9 hullpoints. Meaning g that if a 6 on the D table got through it will kill the revenant on a 3+ on the d6.
ah, no just a regular old mistake because i don't play people using the escalation suppliment - i use apocalypse 1st edition.
Even so, it's half of all shots which have actually hit - firing at it is no garuantee of all hits. (one hit is normal, two hits is lucky and no hits happens more often than i'd like)
Just repeating this as i'm a fan of not getting sidetracked - you'd need a table with one board edge being between 8 and 16 feet long to attempt what you're saying, and the revenant can cover that range difference between it and imperial equivalents with it's jump jets..
Revenant has blast as well. The double barrel turbolaser destructor is priced at 10 points less than the pulsars by forgeworld/GW. It should be 100 points more than that if you use the volcano cannon as the baseline for strD large blast weapons (it was the only one I haven't seen people complain about being overpowered)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, it can make up the range with jump jets. That's why they are of similar point values. If it didn't have the jump jets it would be 735 points. Drop the holofield and it goes down to 635. It would be ripped apart by autocannon fire at that point though...
Not in the slightest. The wraithknight is 100 points too cheap. Wind rider jetbikes should be 4+ armor. Scatterlasers should always be 5 points more expensive than shuriken cannons whenever chosen as an upgrade.
My point in this thread is that the revenant titan is that it isn't too cheap, it isn't too strong, you can't expect to counter it with tactics. Your average table gives it too much of an advantage for normal games.
If every game you played on a normal table involved wall spaced every 10" running accross the table that were 12" high it would make jump/jet infantry and barrage weapons seem overpowered and unfair to everyone else. The revenant pays for everything it has, it is just being used in games that take away all of the weaknesses built into it that balance it against other titan level walkers.
When I look at a unit, I look at the math. The math shows where this unit belongs and that is a play area where huge distances need to be traversed or fired over. It has pitifully short ranged guns, but only when compared to other giant walkers. It needs the speed to counter those units, but on a table where it can reach the other side in a single turn it's speed seems so infuriating because nothing on the table that isn't a flyer can catch it effectively.
Tldr; it isn't a problem where the revenant is too cheap for its abilities, it is just that the counters aren't available on your average game space.
TheCustomLime wrote: I'm sorry to say this but your fan created VDRs don't really hold much water during discussions about the comparative effectiveness of various units. They aren't official, most people don't know about/don't use them and they may be very biased. Maybe something you weigh heavily isn't as effective as you think it is or something you think isn't effective is in some unforeseen situations. Bottom line is that if you want to convince people that the Revenant titan isn't OP using rules you made up isn't a good way to do it.
I respect your opinion here, I can't expect to convince you via a discussion about the validity of my vdr. But what I will say is that every other superheavy and gargantuan creature that has been decried as too strong or too weak that I have put through this ruleset I've been able to give not only the point total that it would be to make it balanced, but also what exactly would need to be added to make it worth the points spent on it.
I've spent 9 months building and refining the v/mcdr, with public feedback and hundreds of hours ensuring the points held within it aren't skewed one way or another. I can tell you that ork transports are all overcosted by the transport capacity number, and that the killakans don't get any point discount for their cowardly grots rule. I can tell you that tyranid monstrous creatures actually pay upwards of 20 points for their instinctive behavior rule, and the synapse and shadows of the warp are a 20 point upgrade. Imperial armies don't pay for the tank rule on their vehicles where xenos do. I can tell you that battlefocus is only a 10 point upgrade for walkers, and that eldar can't make a vehicle with an armor value above 12 unless it has at least 21 hullpoints.
I can tell you all of this, and all I'm really doing is farting in the wind because you have no reason to believe me. If you don't agree with the points I presented earlier in the thread, how many points would you say each of those things are worth? Is 165 points too cheap for almost flyer level speed? Are the eldar holofield really not worth more than three times imperial voidshields? Consider the fact that the weapons used solely to drop the shields actually threaten the revenant where they cannot possibly hurt the warhound. How much more do you think the pulsars are worth? 185 per gun doesn't seem unreasonable considering the two are worth as much combined as some other superheavy vehicles.
Help prove me wrong, use the rules linked in my signature, show me where things are broken and I am always willing to fix it. I am getting close to sending it to games workshop to see what they think, I want it to be so tight they can't help but take a closer look and maybe stop doing things that break the game. (A boy can hope...)
I'm not calling into question the effort you put into your VDR or even if they are any good. It's just that I find it kind of odd that you refer to rules that basically you made up, however well, to back up your arguments. Testing new rules isn't easy. You need a lot of playtesting by qualified gamers (High level tournament experience preferably. Not the game designers playing a garage game [A dig at GW and not you, btw]) which isn't cheap or quick. WotC and FFG put a lot of effort to ensure that their rules are balanced taking into consideration countless possibilities that the designers themselves may not even have thought of. Even experienced professional designers can't think of everything that can go wrong with their rules. What chance do you, a highly devoted fan, have at making fair rulesets that cover dozens of units with thousands of possible builds and even more possible rules interactions?
I mean, even in this thread shows some weaknesses to your methods to your VDR. You weigh your points costs based on absolute power but as pointed out by other posters that's not all there is to the story. The Revenant Titan may seem fairly costed in a vacuum but when placed on a small table where it can move about as it pleases and utterly shut down the opposing army's long ranged firepower it's rules start to seem utterly ridiculous. If you want my full opinion on the matter it's not so much a problem with your VDR as it is with GW's "Just throw everything in" paradigm they have taken to recently. If it was just "Apoc only" yeah it's not really all that broken.
Maybe you should wok out a "Apocalypse Only" stamp to your VDR? Just a helpful suggestion.
I have something close to that in the weapons and upgrades section where certain options are available only superheavy level units and fortifications.
What I did with the v/mcdr is go through what the fanbase here has noticed about certain unit/weapons/wargear/rules and go into the ruleset with math in mind. If you look at my houserules in the proposed rules forum you will see the amount of work done there to balance out what games-workshop has done.
If you take those houserules, ignore only the changes to tyranid synapse (not shadows in the warp, those are legit) and rebuilt every monstrous creature and vehicle in the game with the rules I updated you would see a HUGE rebalancing of the game at large.
Basically the core 40k is the beta system, I figured out a basic mathematical system that (seemingly) works with the ruleset, and now I am doing what GW should be doing and working out an errata. I have absolute faith in the community to see where discrepancies lie, and I have the same faith in the math I've already done. Whenever they don't coincide I look for the reason why, which is where the thought for this thread originated.
I love 40k, I love math, I understand GW doesn't care enough to try and fix the system. I am willing to try.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Revenant has blast as well. The double barrel turbolaser destructor is priced at 10 points less than the pulsars by forgeworld/GW. It should be 100 points more than that if you use the volcano cannon as the baseline for strD large blast weapons (it was the only one I haven't seen people complain about being overpowered)
Automatically Appended Next Post: And yes, it can make up the range with jump jets. That's why they are of similar point values. If it didn't have the jump jets it would be 735 points. Drop the holofield and it goes down to 635. It would be ripped apart by autocannon fire at that point though...
Edit: forgot basic subtraction for a minute.
going by that, how much should a standard Ork Stompa cost?
My point in this thread is that the revenant titan is that it isn't too cheap, it isn't too strong, you can't expect to counter it with tactics. Your average table gives it too much of an advantage for normal games.
Dude, i've shown you in this thread that the table size doesn't affect the effectiveness of the revenant titan (the 'jump jet move on an 8 to 16 foot long table' thing).
Your assignment of points costs per item of wargear based on it's final points cost in the 'escalation' suppliment and subsequent relation to other unit's points costs belongs in the '40k proposed rules' forum; It should not be in the 'general discussion' forum guised as an inflammitory thread telling peole why an obviously op unit isn't op.
In respect to the title of this thread - You've beaten your way through the horse's corpse and now you're flogging the blood soaked ground beneath it.
Fair enough for spending time trying to rationalize the points assigned by GW to these units; but to me, thats like trying to rationalize a nations military presence around the world by examining how it's defence spending is assigned.
Saying 'it's not broken because it was designed for bigger tables and apocalypse games' doesn't hold water anyway because GW then put it in the main game. That argument would work if it was only allowed in apocalypse, but it's not.
I'm not calling into question the effort you put into your VDR or even if they are any good. It's just that I find it kind of odd that you refer to rules that basically you made up, however well, to back up your arguments.
Duke: "I'm going to prove you're a cheater by beating you in a game of my own devising!"
Stompa
Av 80 points
HP 300 points
Big shootas/twinlinked big shoots 22 points
Supa rokkits 60 points
Supa gattler 70 points
Scortcha 10 points
Mega choppa 123 points
Effigy 15 points
Transport 20 points
Total 720 points.
Lord of skulls
Av 70 points
Hullpoints 200 points
Gorestorm cannon 190 points
Hades gattling cannon 185 points
Daemon 10 points
Daemonic possession/ daemon forge 30 points
Fleet 5 points
It will not die 30 points
Rage 5 points
Great cleaver of khorne 135
Fuelled by rage 25 points
880 points
Spent the morning calculating the weapons on the lord of skulls, those are my findings. Both of these units spend 120 points for strength D in melee, and they both suffer from their weapon loadout being too generalised.
The lord of skulls is appropriate for the cost, it just spends too much on the primary ranged weapon systems. Dropping just the gore storm cannon would bring it to an agreeable price point. Or you could add a heavy stubber to give it the ability to charge something nearby like the knight does.
The stompa is indeed overcosted, you could give it two ork shields (void shields that don't come back) for 50 points to bring it in line with the cost.
The baneblade is perfectly costed, that is why those variants are the baseline stat and pointcost I used for all of the superheavy class weapon systems.
Issue here is that you've rated D melee above things like Battle Cannons, yet we know from the Knight pricing within Codex Imperial Knights that a two gun knight costs MORE than a D weapon single gun knight, not the other way around.
Melcavuk wrote: Issue here is that you've rated D melee above things like Battle Cannons, yet we know from the Knight pricing within Codex Imperial Knights that a two gun knight costs MORE than a D weapon single gun knight, not the other way around.
D weapon knights spend 90 points on that particular bonus. The avenger gattling cannon and paladin battle cannon cost 60 points a piece. The double gun imperial knight should be 345 points.
As a matter of fact, most people I've seen discussing the new versions of the imperial knight think the twin gun version is good, but a bit too expensive...
Melcavuk wrote: Issue here is that you've rated D melee above things like Battle Cannons, yet we know from the Knight pricing within Codex Imperial Knights that a two gun knight costs MORE than a D weapon single gun knight, not the other way around.
D weapon knights spend 90 points on that particular bonus. The avenger gattling cannon and paladin battle cannon cost 60 points a piece. The double gun imperial knight should be 345 points.
As a matter of fact, most people I've seen discussing the new versions of the imperial knight think the twin gun version is good, but a bit too expensive...
I'd take that over the other variants at that cost any day.
It is a specialised variant, so nothing is wasted. Just like the melee only option gives you a more efficient use of points if all you want is a close combat heavy hitter storming down field.
But the extra attack is also strength D and if you are charging into cover you can use the big glove because it would be at I1 anyway. Then you get a shooting attack if you were going after a monster or vehicle.
Every game I've feielded my revenant - and it's seen about 30. (Mostly apocalypse) it's ran the table. The list of super heavy kills it has is so long I don't bother keeping track. The thing is crazy efficant. For apoc that's awsome, and I have had games where it's been destroyed. Usually when I face 4+ SH. It just can't keep up with the incoming fire and goes down. But not before it takes out a solid chunk of the enemy. In a normal game..... It would be very hard to stop. Not even the new tau triple cannon thing from FW or the armless wonder would do much I reckon. - for that reason I don't think it belongs in normal games. Mine stays in its display case beside the phantom, unless someone asks to fight it. I certainly would not take it to a tournament or "offical" match. I like to win.... But not like that. Good? Yes. Over powered - no. But I believe it was designed for apoc, facing off against legions of baneblades, warhounds and stompas. 7th brought it out of its home and introduced it to "normal" games. It's not over powered or broke. But it is an invasive species.
How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.
TheCustomLime wrote: So, you're saying that units that were originally intended for Apocalypse games are overpowered in standard 40k? That's been known for awhile. Warhound Titans are a good example of this too.
to be fair to the warhound here at the current arms race acceleration going on in the current meta especially with many tournaments opening up to lords of war the warhound will probably look pretty tame within the next 5 years. in fact your porbably going to see players treat that as entry level seal clubbing. assuming anyone continues to buy into games workshops ludicrous price jacking at that point
Quickjager wrote: How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.
The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.
Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.
DarthSpader wrote: Every game I've feielded my revenant - and it's seen about 30. (Mostly apocalypse) it's ran the table. The list of super heavy kills it has is so long I don't bother keeping track. The thing is crazy efficant. For apoc that's awsome, and I have had games where it's been destroyed. Usually when I face 4+ SH. It just can't keep up with the incoming fire and goes down. But not before it takes out a solid chunk of the enemy. In a normal game..... It would be very hard to stop. Not even the new tau triple cannon thing from FW or the armless wonder would do much I reckon. - for that reason I don't think it belongs in normal games. Mine stays in its display case beside the phantom, unless someone asks to fight it. I certainly would not take it to a tournament or "offical" match. I like to win.... But not like that. Good? Yes. Over powered - no. But I believe it was designed for apoc, facing off against legions of baneblades, warhounds and stompas. 7th brought it out of its home and introduced it to "normal" games. It's not over powered or broke. But it is an invasive species.
Good post! I don't have the experience to agree, but I have the confidence to defer.
Own one and in anything other than a APOC game or a massive play game; which I guess is still APOC with no special scenerio rules, it is far to stupid to field. on occasion people can get lucky and take it down, but more offten than not the holofield just seems to ignore anything shot into it.
TheCustomLime wrote: So, you're saying that units that were originally intended for Apocalypse games are overpowered in standard 40k? That's been known for awhile. Warhound Titans are a good example of this too.
to be fair to the warhound here at the current arms race acceleration going on in the current meta especially with many tournaments opening up to lords of war the warhound will probably look pretty tame within the next 5 years. in fact your porbably going to see players treat that as entry level seal clubbing. assuming anyone continues to buy into games workshops ludicrous price jacking at that point
I'd figure most would just make card board titans to varying levels of success. You know, just like in regular apocalypse.
Quickjager wrote: How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.
The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.
Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.
I would argue that the Baneblade is overcosted for what it does. It's main gun suffers heavily from not having ignores cover as most of the time half the wounds it causes just goes away and it can't deal with even regular monstrous creatures effectively. It should be a lot cheaper.
Quickjager wrote: How do you know the Baneblade is perfectly costed. You have everything coming from that one data point, but even then it is a datapoint that you are putting faith in that is balanced by GW.
The baneblade has never been complained about as being too powerful. So it was one of my balance points for superheavies when I designed the system.
Darhspader, if you were to change the 6 on the destroyer table to d3+3 hullpoints/wounds you would see a huge gap closed between the superheavies that do and don't have those calliber of weapons.
Why the hell is the baneblade cannon so expensive? It hardly does anything. I would rather have a Basilisk - it has a longer range, 3 more hullpoints, doesn't require LOS, can still shoot at a separate target, and can buy camo netting all for cheaper than the one gun of a Baneblade .
Wut.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh also the basilisk ignores intervening terrain for cover saves.
I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.
"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"
See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.
Dozer Blades wrote: So who here actually believes a Revenant is balanced in a regular game of 40k ?
Apparently the OP due to the fact that it is costed fairly in games involving much larger boards. Also, it helps if you houserule D to be weaker. And the OP came to this conclusion using custom rules that he made up.
Vash108 wrote: I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.
"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"
See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.
I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.
Vash108 wrote: I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.
"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"
See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.
I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.
Vash108 wrote: I feel once things get Titan shaped, use should be agreed upon before you pull it out of nowhere. It is kind of a gak move to pull on someone unsuspecting.
"Hey, I want to try out my Titan for a game, would you be down?"
See it's not that hard to do and at least I know I will be going into a game where I will pretty much pick up my army I just deployed on turn 1.
I did that for my first two games with my Hellhammer, despite it being overcosted. My opponent got over his trepidation relating to SH vehicles by me allowing him to tailor his list.
The revenant IS balanced. It's just balanced for a game style that is rarely? Played. It's an excellent unit for apoc. It's expensive - for its class and as far as "scout" or small class Titans go, it's got a good mix of offense and defense. It's more an offensive and speedy unit, lacking in armor. Vrs something that's more heavily armored, slower and or less firepower. But it is balanced.
The problems with it:
- 7th really brought super heavies into the "normal" game. This is a mistake.
- when playing a game of 7th using "normal" units wich expect to compete against other "normal units" adding a titan of any kind, is generally bad news.
- this is purely a case of an animal being moved from its natural environment where it has "predators" to keep it in check, into an environment where no such predator exists. Therefore it expands aggressively and without check, causing it to gain the appearance of overpowered. In its intended game style it's perfectly ok and a fun unit to have and play against. But in normal games it quickly dominates because normal stuff is not designed to fight it, or defend against it. The same is said for other SH - the second part of the issue, is unlike some other super heavy / apoc units, the rev actually achieves a pretty good balance and is effective for its cost. So it's impact to normal games is more, then something less efficant.
True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.
Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.
If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?
It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.
Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound
The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.
OR, you could balance the SHV/LOW so that they're fine in low points games, such as the 25% or 33% rule, which restricts most titans to APOC level anyways.
Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.
Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.
The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...
I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.
I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: A 10" pieplate doesn't do diddly, because the opponent knows it's coming. He will spread his units out.
So that means it can kill 5 tactical marines a turn, because combat squads is all he will give you to shoot at that you can kill.
Against vehicles, it does 1 hull point per vehicle under the template if they're not AV13 or 14, in which case it's likely to do nothing at all.
It also has a teeny weeny chance of blowing them up if it penetrates.
Even a S 10 AP 1 Ignores Cover 10" blast does little if your opponent is not braindead. I fought against my regular SW player and he just spread things out and deepstruck the Molester Dread to deal with my Stormsword/Hammer/whatever the variant is.
In the whole of the game my SH Assault Gun did a total of: 1HP's worth of damage and a stunned result to a Vindicator, killed off 5 Bloodclaws on jump packs, killed 5 SW devastator equivalents and stripped 2 HP from Molester Dread.
My opponent knew what was coming and played for it.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.
Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.
The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...
I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.
I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.
Having used the Baneblade, I can confirm that you're way off the mark.
The Baneblade's main gun has a habit of needing a good three hits (discounting cover) to take out a vehicle, and if its targeting infantry, that's because they got into melee range. Once that happens, the Baneblade seems to be made of paper. It's a rather ineffectual vehicle on the TT, and is about 100-200 points overpriced.
Blasts in general suck. A good number of ordinary shots do the same job, are more reliable, and can strip more armor.
I personally think the SHV weapons need more weapons like the Distorter Cannon on the Mechanicus troops. Hits 1 model, does D3 wounds/hp; rather than the easy Template STR: D solution.
DarthSpader wrote: True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.
Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.
If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?
It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.
Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound
The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.
This is a copout - people know that no one wants to play against an Revenant... bringing one for a normal game of 40k equates to a dick move. Just because we can doesn't necessarily mean we should.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Anything that can be classified as a titan should definitely not be sprung on an unsuspecting opponent.
Nobody believes that destroyer rolls of 6 is balanced. If you lower it to what I say above then other lowlevel superheavies have a decent chance of survival, and may then retaliate.
The baneblade cannon is priced the way it is because it covers a 10" area. That is a huge chunk of board space and could drastically change the outcome of the game the first time it is fired, every game. Comparing it to a basilisk is more than a bit silly...
I admit that the design rules I use for my side of the discussion have been updated by me. But they are not my idea, nor are they some third party offering for how things should be priced. They are a reworked update of the 4th edition design rules given out by games workshop in the late 90's. I went through and addressed issues people had with the original iteration, then balanced it according to the current ruleset to allow people to make their own vehicles. While doing so I was able to start trying to piece together how games workshop priced their units, and began balancing things out for games via my houserules.
I thought that I had something interesting to share in my findings, so I did. That was all.
Having used the Baneblade, I can confirm that you're way off the mark.
The Baneblade's main gun has a habit of needing a good three hits (discounting cover) to take out a vehicle, and if its targeting infantry, that's because they got into melee range. Once that happens, the Baneblade seems to be made of paper. It's a rather ineffectual vehicle on the TT, and is about 100-200 points overpriced.
It has a rear armor value of 12, there isn't much most infantry can do to it in melee at all. If you aren't firing large blasts at units that they are designed to obliterate then that is not an issue with the gun. The baneblade cannon is designed to cover the most models possible, whatever those may be. And it taking three shots to eliminate a vehicle isn't true. Ap2 gives a +1 to the damage chart Meaning you have a 50/50 chance of immobilizing or destroying a weapon, not to mention the 1/6 to simply blow it up.
Blast weapons are all terrible at killing monstrous creatures, the baneblade cannon is priced appropriately against every other blast weapon in the game (with the vdr) if you knocked 100 points off of the gun, it would be priced at 5 points more than the twin battle cannon of the paladin, and would be slightly cheaper than the earthshaker cannon. That is a bit much. If you want to shave off 100 points then drop 3 hullpoints off of it. You are paying for the 50% higher durability over the imperial knights, and if it is being killed as easily as you say, then the extra hullpoints shouldn't matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, for the holofield being 100 points, I can compare it to other defensive buffs out there
4+ invul 30 points
3+ invul 60 points
Voidshields 35 points
Ork fields 25 points
Knight energy field 20 points
The holofield is over tripple what other models spend on a 4++ or a voidshield. Would you rather see the same firepower and similar survivability with 70 less points spent?
the enemy isn't going to let units that it is designed to obliterate near you.
They will spread their units FAAAAR apart, and guard players will not combine their squads (letting them stay 10 men and split way up) and Marine players will combat squad, giving you a whopping 5 models per blast if they're smart about spreading.
Against vehicles, the Baneblade's maingun is an Ordnance Lascannon, so worse than the 60 point rapier platform.
Exactly what Unit1126 is saying. It might have a weapon that is REALLY good at something, but if you can't make that situation happen it is useless.
It is the Grey Knight problem. I pay for power weapons, stormbolters, and the ability to deepstrike. But no effective target for these weapons as the infantry are in vehicles that cannot be assaulted from deepstrike or be killed by stormbolters, so the mech runs away.
It is like putting a 15 point melta on a Tau Firewarrior. Yea it is appropriately costed, but the situation that they are good in is never going to happen.
Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.
I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.
I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.
I disagree completely. The Baneblade cannon certainly isn't worth an entire Leman Russ. It really isn't very good at all.
But if you would prefer to stick to your theory even when it flies in the face of reality, be my guest.
The baneblade cannon is as I recall just a str 9 really big blast. Since it's not a D weapon it's not Likley to 1 shot stuff.
The rev has a much better chance, given the 4 small D str blasts. It's gotten worse//better depending on view with he changes. It no longer insta kills stuff - so a chance things might survive the hit. But the baneblade can't really do that. And in all fairness a baneblade is geared and set up for anti infantry control - where the rev is a SH Hunter. So it will naturally excell at killing baneblades. (Mine has well over 30 baneblade chasis kills, and had only been killed once fighting them - and that was facing off vrs an army that had 10 of them plus a few warhounds. I took out both warhounds (they had anti inf as well) and 5 of the blades before the weight of fire took me down) using the standard baneblade as a tank / SH hunter is a mistake. It could probally handle normal tanks like a Lemun Russ, or predator etc. But it's not designed for that task. Your bringing a butter knife to a steak dinner with that one.
So comparing a baneblade vrs the rev is like comparing a lazcannon to a flamer. They have diffirent intended roles.
And yes I agree. Taking any super heavy, rev titan included without letting the other guy know ahead of time, or putting it i a tourney list that dosent explicitly mention "take yours / prepare for Titans" is a bit dickish - and I don't do it. I may consider it if I'm paying money to play in such tournament and it has a substantial prize - but then I would expect others to do the same and otherwise prepare for it.
Dosent change my stance that it's balanced for its orginal intended apocalypse game style - and by bringing it to normal games is what causes the cries of OP.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Except one in three games should be hammer and anvil, they won't have a choice to bunch up. Space marines in drop pods will at best be 12" apart, and if you are playing guard they don't need to blob in order to hit multiple models. The baneblade is a generalist platform designed mostly for crowd control and survivability. It does both of those things. Cutting prices on things due to their ability to be outplayed is how imbalance starts to seriously set in.
I am sure a green tide ork player and swarm based nids would never complain about the baneblade being to expensive. It doesn't do well in a tournament meta, doesn't mean it is actually overcosted for the amount of firepower it puts out or damage it can take.
Well of course they're not going to complain, as they'll be happy you spent a good chunk of your points on a meh-performing model.
Nid players will either put their swarms in ruins, have them covered by Venomthropes or just have FMCs. All of these things shut down the oh so mighty Baneblade cannon. I've fielded this thing a few times and it is pretty much worthless thanks to cover saves. Hell, there was a game where the twin-linked heavy bolters killed more than the gun itself!
If the Baneblade's gun did D3 wounds and was ignores cover yeah it would be worth taking at it's asking price. As is it is just a more expensive LRBT. And you could probably accomplish more with just spending the points on LRBTs. Or, hell, just get a Knight.
TheCustomLime wrote: Nid players will either put their swarms in ruins, have them covered by Venomthropes or just have FMCs. All of these things shut down the oh so mighty Baneblade cannon. I've fielded this thing a few times and it is pretty much worthless thanks to cover saves. Hell, there was a game where the twin-linked heavy bolters killed more than the gun itself!
If the Baneblade's gun did D3 wounds and was ignores cover yeah it would be worth taking at it's asking price. As is it is just a more expensive LRBT. And you could probably accomplish more with just spending the points on LRBTs. Or, hell, just get a Knight.
Speaking as a tank guy, I'd take three battlecannons over a Baneblade on the tt any day,, despite LRBT's being underpowered.
You can do more HP per turn and kill as much if not more models since you are firing more blast markers. And if your opponent greases a tank oh well you still have two more. Same can't be said about the Baneblade.
If the enemy is piled into ruins, they are bunching up to be hit more, if they are spreading way out, then some aren't hiding in cover and won't get the save.
If there is a venomthrope, kill it with the giant cannon. I specifically said swarm tyranid lists, and a green tide ork list will be destroyed wholesale against a 10" plate that mitigates any feel no pain they bring and can hit 15+ models a shot.
To say the baneblade is worthless is hyperbole at best. Compared to undercosted wraithknights, maybe, but those should be considered outllier in the scope of superheavy units, not the baseline.
To say the baneblade is worthless is hyperbole at best. Compared to undercosted wraithknights, maybe, but those should be considered outllier in the scope of superheavy units, not the baseline.
Do you actually play 40k? Or are you just here to speculate?
Wraithknights are not being taken as the baseline except in tournaments, where the best unit /has/ to be considered the baseline.
Baneblades have such gak performance on the TT, its not even worth taking one. Its a full-on detriment to an IG army. I have used the standard Baneblade and the Hellhammer variant. In every game I use them, I would have been much better off taking the equivalent points in overcosted Russ tanks.
I think amongst the earlier 7E books, most Baneblade type tanks are "allright", perhaps a bit overcosted, but not outrageously so, pretty close to where they should be.
It's when you get into playing against the 2015 books that their utility just crashes, though so do most IG units at that point
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: OK, since we appear to be at an impasse, if you wanted to make the baneblade more capable you could add an alternate fire mode to it with the vdr.
Clustershell 60" range str 8 ap3 large blast primary heavy 4
There, it would equal the same points because the cheaper fire mode at half cost wouldn't equal the base cost of the primary firing mode. Done.
This is looking more and more like proposed rules though...
AND like I always say, if something has to be houseruled, he balance isn't there.
The way multiple firing modes work is you have 75% of the highest point weapon profile added to 50% of the lower. If that doesn't add up to equal the higher profile then you simply take the higher profile. Had to word it that way so people couldn't add a heavy stubber to a demolisher cannon to just get points off of the gun.
I will go back and look at the baneblade cannon, I have no issue with doing so and have always accepted feedback for the vdr.
How much would a Tank, that had Haywire upon ramming another vehicle cost? How much would it cost for Infiltrate as a baseline rule on a Tank (I can't find that in the spreadsheet)?
Haywire on a ram is interesting! Normally haywire is resolved instead of the hit, and ramming is a single hit, I would say it would be the 10 points. Maybe up it to 15 for benefit of the doubt since it would be a one time special thing for that vehicle that doesn't exist elsewhere. As for infiltrate, I would price it at the same as scout and see where it ends up in regards to effectiveness. Infiltrate has a greater potential mobility benefit, but scout is more of a guarantee for positioning.
Preliminary cross referencing for the baneblade cannon is showing it to be about 15 points too expensive. I would say one issue I am seeing with the tank itself is they already have it about 5 points overcosted (presumably paying for the searchlight and smoke launchers) the 15 points over for the cannon, and then the fact that it is paying for the demolisher cannon when that particular gun is so out ranged by everything else that it doesn't get to fire most of the time.
You could knock off another 15 points to turn the demolisher into a battle cannon. That's 35 points off the base cost, with an additional long range gun (didn't give this one the alternate fire mode, though you can if you wanted)
Even horde armies don't play nearly as clustered as the OP indicates and they usually have cover, negating at least a third of any wounds they suffer. Baneblades aren't necessarily awful but they are not competitive at all. Comparing a Baneblade to any other Super Heavy/Gargantuan Creature will only end in tears.
The argument presented against the Revenant is inane, putting it as politely as possible. 95% of all 40k games are standard games, not Apocalypse or other specialist matches. A Revenant is too powerful in a normal game for its cost even when compared to most other Super Heavies/Gargantuan Creatures. Ergo, it is not a "balanced" unit.
To be blunt, the thread is silly and reeks of an advertisement for a point allocation system the majority of the 40k community has no knowledge of. I'm glad for your work and contributions OP but you're not going to convince anyone of the merits of your system by trying to justify a Revenant Titan of all things.
Wasn't justifying it. I said it seemed too good in a normal sized game because all of its abilities were designed to let it compete in a different arena. It paid for all of them, that means it isn't overpowered. It just means it shouldn't be used in game spaces where it doesn't actually suffer from its own "weaknesses".
I was a bit rude, sorry. Basically this thread just proves that most Super Heavies should not be allowed in normal games, but then again Invisibility and super death-stars exist in normal games as well...
The thing about the Revenant is that in the majority of Apocalypse games it still ends up being the MVP unit because it is far and away one of the better SHV's for its points while also acting as the quintessential titan-killer.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Also, for the holofield being 100 points, I can compare it to other defensive buffs out there
4+ invul 30 points
3+ invul 60 points
Voidshields 35 points
Ork fields 25 points
Knight energy field 20 points
The holofield is over tripple what other models spend on a 4++ or a voidshield. Would you rather see the same firepower and similar survivability with 70 less points spent?
How can you say that a 4++ invulnerable is worth 30pts for EVERY model?
Surely increasing the durability of a model by 100% warrants its price to increase by a multiplier, rather than a static modifier? Ie a 4++ save means a 50% increase in cost; a 3++ save means a 100% increase in cost.
I think thats a fundamental flaw in how many points systems are created, and how they fall apart so completely once you start getting to higher points levels or adding multiple statis multipliers to a unit. The various IoM Space Marines Super Friends units are testament to that.
Once you start piling the buffs on, you see models start to get exponentially more effective. If a model survives for twice as long, it fires its guns twice as much. If its guns hit twice as often (BS2-> BS4), it guns do twice as much damage... If it can't be caught in combat, its guns become more effective... if it can move anywhere it wants to avoid Line of Sight issues, its guns become more effective... all of these should be applied as multipliers to its damage dealing potential.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Wasn't justifying it. I said it seemed too good in a normal sized game because all of its abilities were designed to let it compete in a different arena. It paid for all of them, that means it isn't overpowered. It just means it shouldn't be used in game spaces where it doesn't actually suffer from its own "weaknesses".
Sorry your head hurts :/
... so you're saying its overpowered in game spaces where it has no weaknesses. Which is essentially every game on a table less than 12 ft long, which is 99% of games?
Because that wasn't how they did the math, because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it. The issue with multiplying everything the way you suggest is the dice could fail you the very first time you are hit and then your unit is eliminated far too early. What the invul saves at is a CHANCE at survival, not the guarantee of one. Armor saves and the possibility of cover also add to the chance, but can more easily be mitigated.
If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted. Or charging it 60 poi ts for the same defensive boost it can attain from simply standing in ruins. The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on, other survival stats scale because they have to line up with armor penetration values and strength scores.
Also, it is too capable in 99% of games. I reiterate, a unit is only overpowered if it has abilities that it doesn't pay for. The revenant pays for all of the power and speed it possesses, it just doesn't need it outside of fighting other giant titans.
Hence the fluff where they are fielded as a last resort when something g else of that caliber is found on the battlefield.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Because that wasn't how they did the math, because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it.
If you're trying to balance stuff while ignoring probability then you're never going to make balanced rules. Negating incoming damage on a 4+ is equivalent to doubling the HP of a unit. A 10 HP unit with a 4+ "save" and a 20 HP unit with no damage prevention will have the same durability on average. Yes, it isn't guaranteed, but the dice form a nice neat bell curve where the probability of failing all of your 4+ rolls and losing the 10 HP unit "too quickly" is balanced out by the probability of passing all of your 4+ rolls and keeping it on the table "too long".
Under-pricing abilities because they're "just rolling dice" and ignoring the math guarantees that your point costs will be wrong. And as long as you do it that way nobody is going to take your cost suggestions seriously.
If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted.
But the Revenant's 4+ "save" isn't a save, it's a flat 50% damage negation. You get it in addition to any armor/cover/invulnerable saves you might have, which means the "what if you never face a weapon where it is relevant" argument fails entirely.
The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on
But "chance to save" isn't what determines the value of a save (or save-like ability). What matters is the percentage the unit's durability is increased by, and that added value is a multiplier on the base value of the unit, not a fixed value independent of what you put it on. Doubling the durability of a 5-point unit should cost much less than doubling the durability of a 500 point unit. And in the case of the Revenant you're doubling the durability of a unit that should probably cost 1000+ points before you add the 50% damage negation. And that should cost way more than your proposed 100 points.
Isn't the point that you're doing your own math using your VDR? If all your VDR does is come up with made up numbers for abilities that add up to the costs that GW assigned, its not very useful. The point of coming up with your own system is that you can change it to create different results than GW gets.
because it isn't a static 50% addition to survival but a chance at it. The issue with multiplying everything the way you suggest is the dice could fail you the very first time you are hit and then your unit is eliminated far too early.
OR, the Titan could save every single shot at it for 20 games in a row.
And this is why Grav guns suck because they only have a CHANCE at wounding 2+ save units; and they're just as good as boltguns because boltguns also have a CHANCE at wounding the same models.
Oh wait... that doesn't sound right.
If you're going to ignore statistics and fall back on 'but its dice! there is a chance!'... you're going to have a bad time.
If a monstrous creature like the wraithlord was charged an additional 120 points for a 3++, and nothing fired an ap3 weapon at it, those points are totally wasted. Or charging it 60 poi ts for the same defensive boost it can attain from simply standing in ruins. The chance for denial of damage is equal no matter what you put the save on, other survival stats scale because they have to line up with armor penetration values and strength scores.
Hence why a general 100% increase in durability should make the model cost less than 100% more, because the save may not be applicable in all circumstances. On the other hand, the Revenant's holofield is applicable in all circumstances, as it can
Also, it is too capable in 99% of games. I reiterate, a unit is only overpowered if it has abilities that it doesn't pay for. The revenant pays for all of the power and speed it possesses, it just doesn't need it outside of fighting other giant titans.
Then you're using an incomplete definition of overpowered.
A model's cost is (supposedly) added to for strengths it gains and subtracted from for weaknesses it gains. If the weaknesses in fact don't exist in a real game (I'm still not convinced that the weaknesses exist even in an Apocalypse game), then the cost shouldn't be discounted.
I get what the OP is saying, that there's nothing terribly overpowered about the model per se. The issue is:
1) It shows up with Eldar armies
2) There are not that many other players with Titans, Greater Daemons, Superheavies, etc to provide balance.
If you think about it for a minute, it's hard to build a list that can handle a Revenant plus a squad of Jetbikes with scatterlasers. The synergy is what makes the unit more powerful than it's stats would suggest.
If Orks could field something comparable it would be a different story. Maybe it would be more fair if Revenants would be swapped with Stompas.
The revenant holofield at 100 points is set that way because they are limited to armor value 12 until they are at least 21 hullpoints. The revenant is a 900 point titan with worse armor than a 400 point knight. It gains a 50% (if it moves, 33% otherwise) chance to negate strength 10 but that strength 10 has a much higher chance to injure the revenant than it does a warhound. There is also the fact that the revenant is actually threatened by things like autocannon and multilasers.
The holofield are designed to help mitigate the eldar lack of heavy armor values and to make them cost similar to other races superheavies.
My vdr wasn't originally designed to be something to fix what games workshop was doing. It was designed to allow people to make their own vehicles that would be comparable to ones that already exist. I have made changes to the pricing of abilities and weapons to make them make more sense, but I would have to make an infantry design system from scratch in order to not swing things too far out of whack.
If I priced the invuln save differently from what games-workshop appears to do, then nobody would use them due to them being more outclassed by infantry on the table.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The revenant holofield at 100 points is set that way because they are limited to armor value 12 until they are at least 21 hullpoints. The revenant is a 900 point titan with worse armor than a 400 point knight. It gains a 50% (if it moves, 33% otherwise) chance to negate strength 10 but that strength 10 has a much higher chance to injure the revenant than it does a warhound. There is also the fact that the revenant is actually threatened by things like autocannon and multilasers.
The holofield are designed to help mitigate the eldar lack of heavy armor values and to make them cost similar to other races superheavies.
My vdr wasn't originally designed to be something to fix what games workshop was doing. It was designed to allow people to make their own vehicles that would be comparable to ones that already exist. I have made changes to the pricing of abilities and weapons to make them make more sense, but I would have to make an infantry design system from scratch in order to not swing things too far out of whack.
If I priced the invuln save differently from what games-workshop appears to do, then nobody would use them due to them being more outclassed by infantry on the table.
Translation: You've never met a Revenant on the TT, or you use one, and you're doing everything you can to justify GW's terribad points costing.
I used one once, via proxy in an apocalypse game. It did OK, giant team game where it got nuked second turn by another strength D shot before it got to do that much. I would never attempt to validation all of their pricing, but some units are direct translations of their epic counterparts, and those games were on a significantly different scale. Making the choices made for the revenant in regards to weapon loadout and maneuverability less nonsensical.
DarthSpader wrote: True. But it's not the fault of the revenant. And directing hate and vitriol against the rev is misplaced.
Instead blame the people who decided to allow super heavies and Titans into normal games. Who changed the system, and brought in things that were not intended for that system.
If you bring a shark into an area that's never had sharks and have no predator or way to control said shark - is it the Sharks fault when they breed and get out of control? Or is it the fault of the person who brought the shark over in the first place?
It's the later. The rev titan is an amazing model with good rules, and is a blast to use. And even fun to play against if you can bring other super heavies like warhounds or other Titans - it's fairley priced for what it does in those games. But because GW didn't think it through too much when they "unlocked the SH box" for normal games - people go "oh yea I can take this in. Normal games" and do. People who don't expect it and don't build a list or army to deal with it are caught off gaurd - can't deal with it then cry foul.
Issue is not with the rev itself. Changing its rules won't do much more then bandaid a bullet a wound
The issue is this editions rule set that brought them in. Change it back to 5th or earlier, get rid of Superhev / low choices in normal games and the problem goes away.
Wait, wasn't the Revenant updated (or at least included) with Escalation during 6th Edition, which was created solely to introduce super heavies to the regular game? That would indicate that the current rules ARE intended for use with normal games and table sizes, so using the whole "only meant for Apoc games" argument is invalid. Yes, GW was lazy and just reprinted the Apoc rules for many of the SH units in that book, but it could be just as easily said that they felt the rules were appropriate.
While I think everybody gets that SH in general are really too strong for the standard game, especially those from FW, but the simple fact remains, the rules allow it, so we have to go by what we are given. Based on that, you will be hard pressed to find anybody that agrees that the Revenant isn't OP and is priced appropriately for 7th edition 40K.
I think Super Heavies CAN work in the current rules set, but they really have to have a good balance between destructive output, durability, and points cost. Nobody bats an eye when a Khorne Lord of Skulls or Ork Stompa hit the table, because while these units are very durable, they lack the efficient destructive output and extreme mobility that something like the Revenant has. Any calculation that can justify both the Lord of Skulls' and the Revenant's points pricing has to be severely out of whack because the two models are on the opposite ends of the SH efficiency spectrum.
Selym wrote: And that, folks, is why this thread got made.
That was a year and a half ago, so no it isn't.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And if you wanted to drop the speed of the revenant, subtract the 160 points it pays for it and don't let it have it.
I gave you what the points appear to be for the different abilities the revenant possesses, take them away and see what it brings to the table.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I used one once, via proxy in an apocalypse game. It did OK, giant team game where it got nuked second turn by another strength D shot before it got to do that much. I would never attempt to validation all of their pricing, but some units are direct translations of their epic counterparts, and those games were on a significantly different scale. Making the choices made for the revenant in regards to weapon loadout and maneuverability less nonsensical.
You heard it here, folks. It died one time so it's actually balanced.
Did you know I had a Juggerlord and his Crimson Slaughter Nurgle buddy kill a Centurion star with Invisibility once?
The only time my revenant fell was when it got caught out by wyches with haywire grenades. Other than that the most it really needs to worry about is melee knights. Most of the ranged stuff that can take it are low shots which is where the holofield comes in nicely to keep it going. The movement speed covers the weakness of it in combat as well.
Really it has, and counters, its weaknesses too well; to the point where its main concern is actually the size of the table for places it can jump to.
The Revenant is really powerful, to the point of being semi OP.
Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.
Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.
I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.
Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.
I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.
The Baneblade cannot move 12" - Super Heavy Tanks can only move 6" a turn.
The firing all guns bit is true but the amount carried is.... underwhelming.
Compare this to the Baneblade variants whom struggle to find cover, can be melee'd to death by most basic Infantry (Okay it may take a few turns but @ 6" movement per turn with no boost the Baneblade isnt exactly going anywhere fast) and just lack firepower for their points.
I agree, but I gotta point out it can move 12", gives no feths about moving through terrain, and fires all of its guns on the move.
The Baneblade cannot move 12" - Super Heavy Tanks can only move 6" a turn.
The firing all guns bit is true but the amount carried is.... underwhelming.
And I don't base my assumptions on my single game, nor did I ever allude to the revenant being underpowered or easy to kill.
The revenant is the only titan level superheavy that doesn't waste points on the excessive range of the weapons loadout it carries, because it doesn't have that long of a range. It has the speed it does to close in on other titans to diminish their range superiority. Now, did games workshop recognise how strong that would be on a normal size table? No, absolutely not. But if the revenant had an additional 3 foot range on each of its guns and lost the jumping ability nobody would complain and it would still do exactly what it would do in apocalypse games.
They traded excessive range for excessive mobility, paying the same points for the two. They traded a higher armor value for the ability to deflect incoming fire while trying to force the model to use its mobility to gain the maximum benefit.
I didn't make these numbers up, games workshop did. THEY priced the holofield at 25 points a side, I used that as my baseline becaus they didn't change the points for voidshields since then either (35 points each) the old vdr had you pay excessive points for movement in order to make the vehicles slightly more expensive, but let you get huge discounts on low armor values which was the primary way to break the system. I fixed those.
The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.
And I don't base my assumptions on my single game, nor did I ever allude to the revenant being underpowered or easy to kill.
The revenant is the only titan level superheavy that doesn't waste points on the excessive range of the weapons loadout it carries, because it doesn't have that long of a range. It has the speed it does to close in on other titans to diminish their range superiority. Now, did games workshop recognise how strong that would be on a normal size table? No, absolutely not. But if the revenant had an additional 3 foot range on each of its guns and lost the jumping ability nobody would complain and it would still do exactly what it would do in apocalypse games.
They traded excessive range for excessive mobility, paying the same points for the two. They traded a higher armor value for the ability to deflect incoming fire while trying to force the model to use its mobility to gain the maximum benefit.
I didn't make these numbers up, games workshop did. THEY priced the holofield at 25 points a side, I used that as my baseline becaus they didn't change the points for voidshields since then either (35 points each) the old vdr had you pay excessive points for movement in order to make the vehicles slightly more expensive, but let you get huge discounts on low armor values which was the primary way to break the system. I fixed those.
The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.
Just because GW did the pricing does not mean they did it competently or fairly. And where are you getting the numbers from anyway? It's not like GW ever explicitly said how they price thiings - especially as their pricing is extremely inconsistent.
The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.
WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.
They released a vehicle design rules system in 4th edition. The rules themselves were designed so that anything you made would be slightly overpriced to get opponents to be more willing to let you use it.
I decided to update it with the thought that they wouldn't make a new way of creating vehicles just to give to the public, they would probably tweak their own. So I started with those and began adjusting prices based on complaints I had seen for it on forums such as this one. I then began price checking current vehicles that people weren't complaining about in regards to power to see where they lie. I got to v8.0 and added in monstrous creature design rules as well. Built them based on the fa t that some monstrous creatures used to be walkers (such as the wraithlord bei g an eldar dreadnaught) and built those rules the same way. I figured out how toughness and saves equate to armor values and then extrapolated speed and wounds the same way speed equated to hullpoints.
After I had a decent algorithm for survivability, I started the process of comparing weapon points totals and that was where discrepancies in capability to points ratios would start to skew. Especially when there would be multiple weapon options on a unit that were traded for free (such as a phantom titan with double phantom pulsars being 400 points undercosted while the sword and d-cannons mathed out to within 15 points of each other)
It is a work in progress, I am always taking feedback, but it is really only slight tweeks that have been put forth for the past 2-3 months. I figured I was close enough to start using it to actually show how things lined up with one another.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: They released a vehicle design rules system in 4th edition. The rules themselves were designed so that anything you made would be slightly overpriced to get opponents to be more willing to let you use it.
I decided to update it with the thought that they wouldn't make a new way of creating vehicles just to give to the public, they would probably tweak their own. So I started with those and began adjusting prices based on complaints I had seen for it on forums such as this one. I then began price checking current vehicles that people weren't complaining about in regards to power to see where they lie. I got to v8.0 and added in monstrous creature design rules as well. Built them based on the fa t that some monstrous creatures used to be walkers (such as the wraithlord bei g an eldar dreadnaught) and built those rules the same way. I figured out how toughness and saves equate to armor values and then extrapolated speed and wounds the same way speed equated to hullpoints.
After I had a decent algorithm for survivability, I started the process of comparing weapon points totals and that was where discrepancies in capability to points ratios would start to skew. Especially when there would be multiple weapon options on a unit that were traded for free (such as a phantom titan with double phantom pulsars being 400 points undercosted while the sword and d-cannons mathed out to within 15 points of each other)
It is a work in progress, I am always taking feedback, but it is really only slight tweeks that have been put forth for the past 2-3 months. I figured I was close enough to start using it to actually show how things lined up with one another.
I'm seeing a few flaws with this:
-You started from a 4E table
-You're assuming GW continued from that table
-You're assuming GW uses tables
-You're assuming GW didn't off the old design team (hint: half are gone, the other half are too embarrassed to put their names on their work)
-GW *did* rewrite how they price things (FOTM comes to mind)
The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.
WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.
It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.
It is at this point we can safely conclude that Lyth's method of justifying GW's point costing is a nice attempt, but really really gak.
I get what you're trying to do, but without changing the total points costs of almost everything, your calculation method is going to be both ludicrously unfair and nonsensical.
My tables work for 90% of the vehicles out there, and go a long way toward making the tyranid monsters competitive all the way around (hive tyrant is 20 points too cheap, twin linked devourer should be 30 points a piece, but the carnifex should be about 85 points base and the heavy venom cannon should only be 20 points)
Selym wrote: If by "works" you mean that it concludes that everything GW produced is fairly costed, then it needs a rewrite.
What it does is show where they THINK things should be costed. I have a lot of points where I show what games workshop believes the point total should be in regards to weapons, and I have what I believe they should be written next to it. I created a baseline for survivability, and extrapolated points for weapons from there by way of comparison to other similar weapons and the old chart used by games workshop for 4th edition.
I believe they flubb points quite often, especially for the imperial guard, orks, and chaos in the negative and they give too much leeway to the eldar on certain things (scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons, and the wraithknight appears to not pay to be init 5 and gargantuan)
I am attempting to rectify that without completely invalidating everyone's infantry point totals.
Reverse engineering points costs from some GW vehicles lets you work out how much GW should price stuff if they are being consistent. Maybe. If you have enough data points to accurately reverse engineer the points costs.
You can't use your method to determine if X unit is over/under powered/costed unless you have been able to accurately reverse engineer the points costs of all its abilities and reconstructed an identical unit without reference to the original units profile.
That still doesn't allow you to say whether things are over/under costed. GW could price a 2++ save at 1pt per model, and you could reverse engineer that cost and apply it universally for consistent results - but that only tells you how much it does cost, not how much it should cost.
Because you don't have other instances of a lot of the abilities the Revenant has, you can't accurately determine what its cost should be, and so you can't determine whether it is over/under powered/costed. All you can do is make up a bunch of numbers that add to 900pts... which anyone else can do, but it doesn't tell us anything.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.
The Shadowsword does not have a demolisher cannon. Its only weapon, before adding upgrades (which cost extra), is the D-weapon.
And no, making a unit weaker (swapping a demolisher cannon for a weaker gun) and lowering its points by the difference in stats does NOT make a unit better. What matters is the ratio of the unit's power to the unit's cost, and you haven't changed that ratio. You've just removed X points worth of power and X points worth of cost. If you start with a unit that is overpriced then you end with a unit that is still overpriced. If you want to make a unit better by removing power then you need to reduce its point cost by more than the value of the things you removed. For example, drop the Baneblade's demolisher cannon to a battle cannon and reduce its point cost by 200 points.
Also, your argument is especially wrong in this case because a demolisher cannon is a really good weapon on a superheavy platform. Having 12" movement speed makes it easier to get into range to use it, and you don't suffer the drawbacks of the ordnance rule. A Baneblade and a LRBT is a better combination than a battlecannon Baneblade and a LR Demolisher. In fact, if I could pay a few more points to add another demolisher cannon to my Baneblade I'd do it without hesitation. So your proposal only makes sense if you assume that the demolisher cannon is a weak weapon that you don't want to have in your list at all, and that's obviously absurd.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I believe they flubb points quite often, especially for the imperial guard, orks, and chaos in the negative and they give too much leeway to the eldar on certain things (scatterlasers should be 5 points more than shuriken cannons, and the wraithknight appears to not pay to be init 5 and gargantuan)
IOW, GW doesn't use the process you seem to think they use. If they have a list of standard prices for weapons/defense/etc then it should be impossible to get the points wrong because you simply add up what a unit has and get a final result. You can only have inconsistent point values if the author makes up an arbitrary point cost for each new unit based on their personal opinion about how much it "should" cost. You're trying to reverse-engineer a system that, by your own claims, doesn't exist.
Peregrine wrote: And no, making a unit weaker (swapping a demolisher cannon for a weaker gun) and lowering its points by the difference in stats does NOT make a unit better. What matters is the ratio of the unit's power to the unit's cost, and you haven't changed that ratio. You've just removed X points worth of power and X points worth of cost. If you start with a unit that is overpriced then you end with a unit that is still overpriced. If you want to make a unit better by removing power then you need to reduce its point cost by more than the value of the things you removed. For example, drop the Baneblade's demolisher cannon to a battle cannon and reduce its point cost by 200 points.
Well, maybe it could, it the weapons are disparate.
A model that has 10 SD close combat attacks and a 10-shot SD cannon with minimum range 24" would be a lot better with either one of those units.
Or more realistically, you have a tank with a S10 AP1 single-shot gun and a hull mounted bolter. It would be better if it didn't have to spend points on the bolter, because you're not going to shoot the bolter at the same targets as the main gun.
This isn't generally the case for super-heavies because they can fire guns at multiple targets (so they aren't wasted). And in rare displays of rules awareness GW gives heavy stubbers to Imperial knights so they can shoot their guns at juicy targets and mark their assault target with the stubber.
The rules for the rev didn't change at all. What changed first was the "spearhead" scenarios - wich first brought in super heavies. Generally baneblades and stompas (the kits Gw made) - to keep things "fair" they just copy and pasted the warhound, rev, and the khorne thing. Brass scorpion I rhink.
Since then, the revs rules haven't really changed. It's holo fields have been adjusted a few times but in general it's the same. When 6th dropped again gw just copied and pasted a bunch of stuff into escalation as a seperate addition to the main rules - wich also included I think a passing reference to D weapons and hp/sp conversion, and some super heavy rules - but most existed in the other books. But it's still just a copy paste job into the new rules. - rules wich never really took full account of abailable super heavys and the impact they have on the game. And in GWs mind - a super heavy is a baneblade or stompa. Or more recently Knights and the tau thing. (The kits they sell) - and the rules are intended to sell more of those kits.
The rev being a forge world model must be off GWs main radar when it comes to the game, along with a few other factions. Because they seriously didn't consider its ability in a non apocalypse game.
And gw being the cash hungry grabbers they are - how do they get more money per sprue of plastic? Make those sprues contain super big awsome mega tanks/robots and triple the price. Those units are then shoehorned into the game rules. When they become over powered or change the game - because now everyone has to account for them - the units used get rekitted re boxed and increased in Price - or new $180 open topped robot kits get added as counters. It's GWs "red queen process"
The primary reason people may want to swap out the demolisher for a battle cannon is the range disparity. Nobody want to push too far forward with their tank and be beaten to death by something else.
As for the revenant and its abilities, all of the superheavy vehicles for the eldar have the holofield, games workshop priced them originally at 100 points so I based my mathematical assumption on that being the case. I had a decent grasp on the survivability stats otherwise so the only variable I could see was in the price of weapons. Those would be the only part that wouldn't be guaranteed to math out the exact same since they had so many variables in regards to capability. I saw a HUGE discrepancy between the weapon systems, in particular the titan killer ones (strD) so I decided to base them around the only ones I didn't see people really complain about, the gaze of mork, and the volcano cannon. When you see the points listed differently, that is me attempting to balance things against those weapons.
I can use this rule set to build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie. (Such as the robbery of orks by making them pay for assault capabilities for vehicles that are already open topped, or dropping the gork/morkanaught from superheavy status for no apparent reason other than maybe not wanting that many lords of war)
TheCustomLime wrote: IIRC the way GW assigns points costs is that they give an arbitrary value and then tweak it until it "feels right".
Or in the case of many units, give it a points value and just let it be.
Or even worse - assign it a 'cool' points value. Hurr durr wouldn't it be hilarious if the Khornemower cost 888pts because Khorne?
With the khorn mower, it isn't as bad as it seems, just has a problem with not ever being able to charge the things it shoots at. Heavy stubber and it becomes a much more viable unit. The real travesty is angrath the unbound. He would need all of his attacks to be strength D and add an additional attack to his profile to be worth what they say he is!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The primary reason people may want to swap out the demolisher for a battle cannon is the range disparity. Nobody want to push too far forward with their tank and be beaten to death by something else.
Normal games happen on a 6x4 table. The demolisher cannon will have targets.
games workshop priced them originally at 100 points
No they didn't. GW just came up with random arbitrary prices for the unit as a whole, there was never any statement that titan holofields are worth 100 points. And don't forget that the rules for them have changed, causing them to vary significantly in effectiveness over the years, so any attempt to say "they're always worth 100 points" is simply absurd.
I can use this rule set to build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie. (Such as the robbery of orks by making them pay for assault capabilities for vehicles that are already open topped, or dropping the gork/morkanaught from superheavy status for no apparent reason other than maybe not wanting that many lords of war)
I can also make a rule set that can build every vehicle I can get my hands on. Any that come out differently I can tell you exactly where the problems lie.
Peregrine's Vehicle Design Rules:
1) All vehicles cost 10 points per model.
With the khorn mower, it isn't as bad as it seems, just has a problem with not ever being able to charge the things it shoots at.
No, it's laughably bad even with the ability to charge a second target. It gets effortlessly wiped off the table by a Warhound that costs almost 150 points less, and even compared to "normal" superheavies its damage output is awful for the price. There is simply no plausible argument that its point cost has anything to do with its value on the table. GW simply made a Baneblade-level unit and gave it a "fluffy" point cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trasvi wrote: Well, maybe it could, it the weapons are disparate.
A model that has 10 SD close combat attacks and a 10-shot SD cannon with minimum range 24" would be a lot better with either one of those units.
Or more realistically, you have a tank with a S10 AP1 single-shot gun and a hull mounted bolter. It would be better if it didn't have to spend points on the bolter, because you're not going to shoot the bolter at the same targets as the main gun.
What I said is still true in that case because a weapon (or defensive upgrade, stat line, etc) doesn't have a fixed value regardless of what unit it is on. The hull-mounted bolter on the anti-tank vehicle would have very little value, so removing it at the fair price of its minimal value wouldn't make the tank better. You'd only get a better vehicle if you removed the bolter and gave it a point drop that was more than the value of the bolter.
Example: let's say the hull bolter is worth 1 point (it might be worth 5 points on some other tank that can actually use it effectively) and the tank costs 100 points. If you remove the bolter and drop the tank's price to 99 points you haven't made a better unit, you've just made it a cheaper and less-capable unit with the same point efficiency. Even though the bolter wasn't worth much it still had non-zero value (for example, giving a 50% chance to avoid "weapon destroyed" on the main gun or giving 1-2 more shots against infantry when there are no tanks to kill) and the reduction in point cost only matches the value of what it lost. But if you remove the bolter and drop the tank's price to 90 points you've made it a better unit. You removed 1 point worth of capability but dropped its point cost by 10x that amount.
What Lythrandire Biehrellian is claiming to do is establish that a given weapon/upgrade/whatever has a price of X points that accurately reflects its value to the unit, and then "improve" a unit by removing the weapon/upgrade/whatever and reducing its point cost by X. And that's just absurd. If removing the weapon/upgrade/whatever and reducing the unit's cost by X makes it a better unit then X wasn't the correct price, and Lythrandire Biehrellian's method of assigning point values for parts of a unit gave the wrong answer. They're essentially conceding defeat with their own examples.
The revenant is efficient. If the volcano cannon were 60" range it would drop 80 points off of the shadowsword. That isn't an insignificant number, and most superheavies with long range guns work out the same way.
WHAAAAATTTTTTT!?! That would leave the Volcano Cannon with less range than a basic tanks cannon. And dropping 80 points off the Shadowsword would be no where near enough to make up for that. The Shadowsword needs a 100 point drop as it is, without any modifications at all.
It would be a 60" strength D large blast. The shadowsword has the same issue as the baneblade. Not that it is overcosted, but that it is wasting points on things like the demolisher cannon. Swap the demolisher for a battle cannon and lower the points the way I say above and you have 95 points off of a now more efficient vehicle. Done.
It would lack the range of even a Leman Russ's Battlecannon, so no I would say that the range does not need dropping at all. Increasing maybe and dropping a metric ton of its points definetly. The problem is not that it is spending points on things that it does not need, the problem is that it is just generally too expensive. BTW, the Shadowsword hulls do not have a hull Demolisher Cannon, they have: A Main Gun, 3x TLHB's, 2x Lascannons. That is essentially just its point defence weapons plus its main gun.
BTW, I do really like your vehicles design rules but I have to say that in this case the Revenant is too powerful for anything sub apocalypse.
Lyth, the Shadowsword is a titan sniper. It does this poorly, and costs more than some of its targets.
In regards to swapping demolisher cannons for battlecannons, aside form it being pointless on SH tanks like the baneblade, it would look pretty silly.
For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
And as a further kick to the bollocks, the Baneblades used to be about 50-75 points CHEAPER before escalation, and they were still slightly overcosted even then.
Selym wrote: For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.
Yea. It got it with a large price increase. Apparently a twin linked hull HB with a 45* firing arc is worth a lot of points to the shadowsword. I don't have my books on me atm, but I'll be able to give a breakdown of points from before and after escalation later.
Selym wrote: For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.
No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.
Selym wrote: For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.
No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.
Speaking as the guy who has Escalation, you buy the sponsons, but not the hull gun.
Selym wrote: For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.
No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.
Speaking as the guy who has Escalation, you buy the sponsons, but not the hull gun.
Damn, Im still using the Imperial Armour variant. Escalation is looking even worse now.
What next, Baneblades with the Baneblade Cannon are OP, increase the price by 80 points and replace the cannon with a regular Battlecannon. +40 points to upgrade to the Baneblade cannon?
A vehicles damage output efficiency is directly related to their weapons range and prefered targets. The khorne lord of skulls has a problem where both of the guns it has are so strong that they inhibit it from being able to effectively get into melee, thereby stopping it from using all of the points it spent on the melee abilities it has.
I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.
The eldar holofield were 25 points per facing according to the vdr games workshop released and they granted a 4+ invul save to that facing at all time for that side, but only against shooting attacks. The current version is only better than that if the titan had moved and the opponent happened to roll a 6 on the destroyer table at range, and it works in melee. Other units appear to pay 60 points less for a straight up 4++, that means the holofield is over 100% more effective than a 4++
Also, I'm putting the baneblade at 5 points less than the one in apocalypse, I don't have the escalation supplement. Did they change it between the two?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and the only weapon priced appropriately on the warhound is the vulkan mega bolter, taking anything other than that will give you between 35 and 100 points free. They should have listed a point value for them as additions to the hull, not free swaps.
Lythrandire Biehrellian: Don't let all these guys get you down. You took a unit and looked at it the way it is supposed to be looked at and people are putting you down for it. You even updated the VDR charts and people are just saying you made the rules up. I have seen the old VDR from games workshop and I have a feeling 95% of the people who posted on your thread haven't. I would actually like to see your updated VDR so I can help a friend of mine modify his vehicle as he used the old VDR charts and the vehicle may warrant some restructuring.
The picture below is my Armorcast Rev. He hasn't seen much action but I love the look on peoples faces when I put him on the field and tell them it is a revenant. Not at all what they were expecting to see since the forgeworld one is more commonly known.
Selym wrote: For reference, as I'm fairly certain you've never seen one, here's a baneblade:
And here's a shadowsword:
Also, see those sponson lascannons and heavy bolters? They're optional upgrades that you have to pay for, not default equipment. The Shadowsword literally only has one weapon until you start buying upgrades for it.
No you dont, thankfully. They come as standard with the Shadowsword. Its the hull HB's that you have to pay for.
Girls, girls, you're both pretty.
Actually, the real issue is that GW changed the rules for the Shadowsword, where some have the fixed hull HBs, some don't.
If you want a classic resin Mars pattern Shadowsword from the early days of FW, it's:
- NO hull weapon
- Sponson Targeters (+1 BS) instead of Lascannons
Not like the upgunned plastic kit.
I think it's a pretty terrible model for what it does on today's tabletop.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.
No, it's standard fit as seen on the tabletop for both Baneblade and Revenant, Revenants with the S(D) guns, not the crappy sonic lances that nobody fields.
If you're having to handicap or limit the Revenants, then that's just more evidence that your VDR doesn't work. Previously, you had said, it was a function of table size, which I granted to you. Now, you're saying that it's only for certain weapons, which I refuse to accept.
So I wonder: what's the next thing you need to do to make your VDR pretend to work?
How about a radical points cost reduction in the cost of the Baneblade, to <400 pts, as I've suggested in the IG threads. That'd fix things, rather than pretending that BBs and Revenants are both correctly costed.
But rather than forcing you into that hole, I will magnanimously grant you the option of swapping your Baneblades with dedicated anti-Titan armor: the dreaded Imperial Shadowsword superheavy. Mars Pattern, of course. It has a single-shot S(D) gun, so things should be fair, point for point.
The point I was making was when one vehicle is kitted out to hunt superheavies, and the other is set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles the game is a forgone conclusion. If the sonic lance is the weapon that is weaker and unused, why was it the one banned by itc on the superheavy tanks for the eldar and not the pulsar?
@xerics, the link is in my signature. I hope you and your friend find it useful!
Automatically Appended Next Post: And they would be fair, point for point, if the revenant's started at the max range of the shadowsword. If they both are on a 6x4 table, you would have to take off ~80 points from the shadowsword for them to equal out in their firepower levels.
Also, I would suggest my houserule for strength D where a "6" is d3+3 instead of d6+6. It would make whoever goes first a much less important part of the fight, and should be how strD is set up anyway.
Baneblade: -Baneblade Cannon -Autocannon -Demolisher Cannon -Hull HB -525 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Banehammer: -Tremor Cannon -Hull HB -410 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair -Transport Capacity: 25
Banesword: -Quake Cannon -Hull HB -430 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Doomhammmer: -Magma Cannon -Hull HB -420 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair -Transport Capacity: 25
Hellhammer: -Hellhammer Cannon -Autocannon -Demolisher Cannon -Hull HB -540 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Stormlord: -Vulcan Mega Bolter (can fire twice if it does not move) -Two Heavy Stubbers -Hull HB 480 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair -Transport Capacity: 40
Shadowsword: -Volcano Cannon -455 points -May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair -May replace one pair of sponson lascannons with targeters for +1 BS
And on reading that, I've just realized that despit the official model having it, the Shadowsword CANNOT have a hull HB. Feth me.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: A vehicles damage output efficiency is directly related to their weapons range and prefered targets. The khorne lord of skulls has a problem where both of the guns it has are so strong that they inhibit it from being able to effectively get into melee, thereby stopping it from using all of the points it spent on the melee abilities it has.
No, it has a problem where it costs 888 points for "fluff" reasons. Even if you give it a special rule where it can charge any unit, regardless of what it shot at in the shooting phase, it still sucks.
I am fine with multiple revenant's versus the same point total of baneblades, but the revenant's all get sonic lances that way we are both using anti-infantry/medium vehicle guns while trying to take down superheavies.
IOW, "Revenants are fine, as long as you nerf them".
PS: the problem still exists if you use pulsar Revenants (anti-LoW) vs. Shadowswords (anti-LoW). The Revenants effortlessly wipe an equal point value of Shadowswords off the table.
The eldar holofield were 25 points per facing according to the vdr games workshop released and they granted a 4+ invul save to that facing at all time for that side, but only against shooting attacks. The current version is only better than that if the titan had moved and the opponent happened to roll a 6 on the destroyer table at range, and it works in melee. Other units appear to pay 60 points less for a straight up 4++, that means the holofield is over 100% more effective than a 4++
Could you please actually read the rules you're dealing with before trying to analyze and re-balance them? Going from a 4++ to one facing to a flat 50% chance to negate damage is a HUGE change. Remember that holofields are not a save. You can have a Revenant with a 4+ cover save from standing behind a ruin AND a 4+ holofield roll to negate any incoming damage.
Oh, and the only weapon priced appropriately on the warhound is the vulkan mega bolter, taking anything other than that will give you between 35 and 100 points free. They should have listed a point value for them as additions to the hull, not free swaps.
Yes, this is very obvious to everyone who isn't GW. But the fact that GW printed all of those weapons at the same cost should pretty clearly tell you that GW doesn't use the point system you're trying to reverse-engineer, they just arbitrarily assign point costs to stuff based on what "feels" right. Or based on what sells model kits.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The point I was making was when one vehicle is kitted out to hunt superheavies, and the other is set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles the game is a forgone conclusion. If the sonic lance is the weapon that is weaker and unused, why was it the one banned by itc on the superheavy tanks for the eldar and not the pulsar?
And they would be fair, point for point, if the revenant's started at the max range of the shadowsword. If they both are on a 6x4 table, you would have to take off ~80 points from the shadowsword for them to equal out in their firepower levels.
Also, I would suggest my houserule for strength D where a "6" is d3+3 instead of d6+6. It would make whoever goes first a much less important part of the fight, and should be how strD is set up anyway.
First, the Revenant is not "kitted to hunt Superheavies". The Pulsar is a general purpose weapon that's just really good, being a S(D) BLAST. It's good against Terminator infantry, MEQ Veterans, Dreadnoughts, Monstrous Creatures and so forth. It's also good (albeit overkill) against ordinary human / Tau infantry that it generally outranges. And that S5 ML isn't even scratching a superheavy. The Revenant is generally good - that's the point.
Second, the Baneblade is not "set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles". The S9 Ordnance Primary and Lascannons are all anti-tank guns, along with the HK missile. S9 is overkill for infantry, unless you're considering massed ranks of MONSTROUS infantry, and your "light" vehicles are AV13+. The Baneblade is supposed to be a strong TAC unit, but it's clearly overcosted for what it does.
It is a foregone conclusion, and that's mostly because you were wrong when you said that the points costs were fair. Even if we were playing them in the context of "ordinary" Apoc games with some number of basic Eldar / IG T3 units that would give the HBs and Revenant ML something to fire at.
Third, I'm not part of the ITC, so I have no idea why they banned it. Nor do I care, as I don't play their events. If you want an actual answer, ask someone who follows the ITC Tournament rules. Not a casual player who hasn't rolled his dice in anger and fury for years.
For the Shadowswords, you now need to change the deployment so that the Revenants need a minimum 10 foot separation? How is that anywhere near reasonable in terms of gaming? Although, if I'm placing half the terrain, a few well-placed Administratum buildings will mean you don't see anything past 40".
Finally, no way that we're going with house rules, because that's changing the units again. If your Revenant cost was correct, then there's no need to further nerf S(D).
Baneblade:
-Baneblade Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB -525 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Banehammer:
-Tremor Cannon
-Hull HB -410 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Baneblade:
-Baneblade Cannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB -525 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25
Banesword:
-Quake Cannon
-Hull HB -430 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Doomhammmer:
-Magma Cannon
-Hull HB -420 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 25
Hellhammer:
-Hellhammer Cannon
-Autocannon
-Demolisher Cannon
-Hull HB -540 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
Stormlord:
-Vulcan Mega Bolter (can fire twice if it does not move)
-Two Heavy Stubbers
-Hull HB 480 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-Transport Capacity: 40
Shadowsword:
-Volcano Cannon
-455 points
-May take up to two pairs of HB+LC sponsons, for 50 points per pair
-May replace one pair of sponson lascannons with targeters for +1 BS
And on reading that, I've just realized that despit the official model having it, the Shadowsword CANNOT have a hull HB. Feth me.
What the actual feth? How, in even the most Timmyish of Space Marysue players, did the Baneblade and its variants need a nerf of that magnitude and a points increase to warrant? It is hardly like they where over performing to begin with anyway.
That ruin would have to be at least three stories high in order to grant protection to the revenant. And the 4++ on one facing, times four facings is 100 points, which is why I used that as a guideline. And since a 4++ on all facings, including in melee now seems to be only 40 points total me considering the holofield to be 150% more effective doesn't seem that far out of line.
The lord of skulls appears to have been bumped to 888 from about 880. They piled every special rule they could on it to give it those points.
The reason I say use the modified strD is BECAUSE I think GW priced strD too low for what it gives you. But they didn't just give that boon to the revenant, they gave it to everything. If the dreaded 6 didn't have a 66% chance of deleting a 9hp superheavy, then they would have a decent chance at a rebuttal.
If the point totals above are correct, I am indeed going to have to modify the primary weapons of some of the baneblade variants.
With my system (using the stats listed above, assuming av 14/13/12)
Baneblade 505 (not bad)
Bane hammer 530 (WAY OFF, not sure how that happened but thank you!)
Shadowsword 455
Banesword 430 (I don't like being above, I'll address it)
Doom hammer 465 (again, wondering if I somehow didn't take another weapon into account or if the price changed for the better)
Hell hammer 530
Stormlord 582! (No excuse for this, I apologize for that large of a flubb. Will definitely fix that when I get a chance this weekend.)
Now, if the av on some is higher, that may account for some of the points above. If not then yes, I will have some tinkering to do.
The baneblade is a general purpose weapon loadout designed to cover maximum area, agreed? So when you kit out the revenant with an 18" help storm template with super torrent that wounds on a 3+, is ap2 and rolls 3d6 for armor penetration I would say those two would be the best comparison in regards to coverage and optimal target choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post: If you don't place them at maximum distance, then the shadowsword are wasting points on unneeded range. That was my point with this whole thing! If other superheavies were designed to fight on a 6x4 table, the revenant wouldn't stand out at all.
Except the Revenant WOULD because speed and great weapons. Baneblades won't stand out on an Apocalypse table, but the Revenant would because it's actually getting stuff done.
I'm placing my imaginary terrain on the imaginary battlefield, so yeah, it would be at least 3 stories tall to block LOS from your imaginary Shadowswords to my imaginary Revenants...
The S(D) rule was written, and is presumed to be fairly costed into the Revenant that you claim to be corrected priced, like the Baneblade. If S(D) needs a nerf, then your claims of being priced correctly are no longer valid.
The Baneblade is a general purpose unit, yes, and thank you for indirectly acknowledging it's not specifically "set up to kill massed ranks of infantry and light vehicles".
As above, I don't need to cut the range on the Revenant, simply because it helps you make the ridiculous Shadowsword vs Revenant matchup less one-sided than what it would be in the real world. The default kit on a Revenant is the dual Pulsars, and that is what you claimed to be fair. And I gave you the Mars pattern Shadowsword as a dedicated Titan hunter, so that should also be a "fair" matchup, even though the Revenant pays for side and rear holofields, along with a Revenanat ML that it won't use..
The Shadowsword is indeed wasting points on unneeded range. But 1% of the time, it might matter, when you're in a huge megabattle and you need to snipe something a few tables over. And that is what the extreme range is for. Most of the time, it's a 4' x 8' table, and too bad, so sad, Shadowsword sucks.
So again, the revenant isn't out of line with anything else carrying strength D. Strength D needs toned down a bit, but that isn't just the revenant's problem, and the shadowsword is only outclassed by the revenant because it is paying for range it doesn't need on most tables, same as some other superheavy class units and a few other things on the tabletop (basilisk and hydra come to mind, and any flyer paying for supersonic)
I restate my case, because it is what I see. The revenant only appears to be too powerful because it isn't wasting points on excessive range like other superheavies and titans. It bought speed to make up for those units range in the off chance they play somewhere it could be used to their advantage.
With the points I listed above, drop the jumping ability and you get a normal speed superheavy walker at about 735 points. Drop the holofield for a straight up 4+ invul and you are at 675. That makes it slightly weaker than a warhound, and the stats show as much.
I updated the vdr to let people make games workshop compatible vehicles and monsters, not to rewrite the game. If will be updating and looking at some of the issues presented in this thread for my next update, but this thing isn't some nonsense I just threw together. I took what they had done and have tried my best to update it for the current ruleset.
Instead of telling me how garbage it is and how wrong I am, show me where you see a discrepancy. Show me where something that is so significantly better as a weapon of the same calliber that is priced so low that I need to re evaluate share my points lie. Every person here has only told me I am wrong and games workshop sucks, nobody has actual feedback or can give me what they believe to actually be a fair point total for weapons, survivability, speed, and special rules. Show me where I am wrong, please.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, the shadowsword is almost exactly half the cost of the revenant now, two of them have half the firepower, double the hullpoints, 1/3 the speed, over double the ground coverage and almost double the range. They are less survivable than the revenant against strength D but are more survivable against most medium- high strength weapons (the baneblade chasis is harder to penetrate all the way around and spends 90 points for that survivability, the revenant will be easier to glance or pen, but will reduce incoming fire by 33-50%, but spends 135 points for that protection)
Here's the the discrepancy you're looking for: Eldar Titan Holo-Fields are not a 4++ save. They force your opponent to re-roll successful hits, and then you roll for any additional saves. Pack it behind another decently-sized unit, and it automatically has a 5+ cover save. Move one inch, and that save becomes better than a 3+ and successfully protects against Deathblow hits. Add to that the four D-strength pulsar blasts, and the Revenant hits significantly above its weight class.
Is the Revenant Titan overpowered? No, because its an Apocalypse unit and balance doesn't matter in Apocalypse. Is it undercosted? Absolutely. I'd peg it at around the same cost as a appropriately costed Warhound Titan: 1400 points minimum.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Instead of telling me how garbage it is and how wrong I am, show me where you see a discrepancy. Show me where something that is so significantly better as a weapon of the same calliber that is priced so low that I need to re evaluate share my points lie. Every person here has only told me I am wrong and games workshop sucks, nobody has actual feedback or can give me what they believe to actually be a fair point total for weapons, survivability, speed, and special rules. Show me where I am wrong, please.
I think I (and others) already shown you where you were wrong, and continue to be wrong: Revenant, Baneblade and Shadowsword.
Those data points are merely obvious examples of where your system breaks down, and you are not owed anything further than the observation that those points collectively, and clearly invalidate your VDR system. You yourself observe that range is overvalued, but you're not changing the system.
You wrongly claim "the revenant isn't out of line with anything else carrying strength D", and the S(D) Shadowsword blows that statement completely out of the water. An unfluffy, non-model Shadowsword starts at 455 pts, but would be 505 with the sponsons that are typically modeled. People play 900-pt Revenants as a competitive unit, but they do not play 455+ pt Shadowswords except as fluffy. Why? Well, it's pretty obvious - a Revenant is faster and has 2+2 shots which hit 90% of the time, giving excellent chances to insta-kill a Shadowsword (or whatever its target happens to be) in one turn. And that is fine, because 40k wants to have a lot of random things going on. It's excellent story when a Revenant shows up, pops one Shadowsword with its left Pulsar, and cripples the second with the right. What an exciting turn! Anything can happen in Apocalypse. I wonder what will happen next time...
You need to decide whether your VDR is going to try to recreate the secret sauce of how GW costs things, or whether you're going to try and cost everything by "clean sheet" 7E utility on the tabletop, knowing what's out there and what it can do. Paying a bajillion points for 9HP vs 6HP doesn't make sense. Same with a premium for having more than 48" range. Or carrying models as Transport.
So much hate for the Revenant. Lythrandire Biehrellian is the Phantom appropriately costed? Also it isn't his VDR. He took what GW made a long time ago and updated it to current edition and should be commended for that. Just because YOU don't think things are appropriately costed doesn't mean he is wrong. The Revenant has 12/12/10. It has tank armor and can be taken down by mass str 6 shooting (which is extremely common these days). Every shot that gets through the holo fields is a hull point that can never be gotten back. There are no void shields like on the warhound (that can regenerate effectively giving it even more hull points on a lucky roll) and has a front armor of 14! Its REAR armor is the same as the Revenant's best facing! It even costs less than a Revenant! Not to mention that a Void shield absorbs an entire D shot with a 100% chance. Is it Balanced against other Superheavy's? Yes based on the stats of the units. Is it Balanced for a 6 x 4 board? No. Just because you choose to play on a tiny board doesn't mean the Revenant isn't balanced. It just isn't balanced for the circumstances YOU want to play with.
I read OP, but dont have time right now to read 6 pages worth of discussion.
Please Tell me, is OP trolling? Because i came into this with no experience and little knowledge about the revenant titan and after reading the OP, it seems pretty clear that it is OP.
Tankman131 wrote: I read OP, but dont have time right now to read 6 pages worth of discussion.
Please Tell me, is OP trolling? Because i came into this with no experience and little knowledge about the revenant titan and after reading the OP, it seems pretty clear that it is OP.
The revenant is OP for a standard 40k game. It is not OP for Apocalypse.
I refuse to not make things pay for abilities they possess, even if it is obscene range and they aren't playing in a space big enough to use it. I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.
The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.
The phantom is a little bit undercosted if using the big pulsars, but only about 25 points. It drops to hundreds of points too weak when equipped with the other weapon options because GW removed the secondary bonuses (extra attacks for the melee weapon, ignoring voidshields for the phantom distortion cannon)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheNewBlood wrote: Here's the the discrepancy you're looking for: Eldar Titan Holo-Fields are not a 4++ save. They force your opponent to re-roll successful hits, and then you roll for any additional saves. Pack it behind another decently-sized unit, and it automatically has a 5+ cover save. Move one inch, and that save becomes better than a 3+ and successfully protects against Deathblow hits. Add to that the four D-strength pulsar blasts, and the Revenant hits significantly above its weight class.
Is the Revenant Titan overpowered? No, because its an Apocalypse unit and balance doesn't matter in Apocalypse. Is it undercosted? Absolutely. I'd peg it at around the same cost as a appropriately costed Warhound Titan: 1400 points minimum.
Warhound with double barrel turbolaser destructors is about 925-950 if memory serves. It is certainly not in the 1400 point range. The chance of a 6 on the destroyer table is too small to try and pile extra points onto units because they would be paying huge sums of points for something that may not ever happen in game. That is why I say they should drop to d3+3. The shot would still wreck most normal vehicles, and it would pile on a decent enough chunk of damage onto superheavies to make them useful. What it would NOT do is invalidate almost all gargantuan creatures and every superheavy with 9 hullpoints or less that doesn't have voidshields, ork fields, and eldar holofields.
Everyone sees what strD can do, we all recognise the threat, and we can see that on a regular tabletop the revenant is the most efficient delivery system for it. But the last point is only true because the revenant has a limited range compared to other strength D platforms of its size. It does pay (significantly) for the mobility it has to rely on for that range disparity, and when you put into the context of optimal ranges for the units it would consider equals on a (admittedly mythical) endless game space it isn't doing anything that the points it pays for don't allow. If you want your units to line up,then what needs to be done is lower the range of their weapons to fit within their normal game space. Then the revenant will not seem too efficient because they won't be playing with a handicap. Instead of increasing the cost of the revenant or cutting the cost of other superheavies, fix the range discrepancy between game space and weapon range.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I refuse to not make things pay for abilities they possess, even if it is obscene range and they aren't playing in a space big enough to use it. I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.
The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.
And it gets that save IN ADDITION to other saves it may be entitled to: cover saves from ruins or invulnerable saves from blessings. Its the only thing in the game that can completely negate a deathblow result from S(D) weapon. So it SHOULD be better than a 3++ save.
I honestly don't care if you're just recreating GW's costs. If you're doing that, you're never going to come to any conclusion other than 'GW priced this correctly'.
If GW priced holofields at a flat 25pts per facing, in their original VDR or now, they were wrong, and if you try to follow their 'method', you'll get answers that don't prove anything other than that you can add to 900. Its fairly basic logic that a 50% increase in survivability is not worth the same amount of points on a AV10 transport and on a 9HP superheavy.
To be honest I think you're completely wrong about weapon range as well. Any weapon range > 60" may as well be the entire table for all intents and purposes, and as far as I can tell ranges beyond this are assigned completely arbitrarily.
Case in point: some weapons have unlimited range. If weapon cost is proportional to range, then unlimited range weapons must have unlimited cost.
Furthermore... as has been pointed out, the current Revenant rules appear in a 40k book, designed to play regular 40k games on regular 40k tables. Its silly to say it is balanced for apocalypse when it is intended to be used in regular games.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: And the 4++ on one facing, times four facings is 100 points, which is why I used that as a guideline. And since a 4++ on all facings, including in melee now seems to be only 40 points total me considering the holofield to be 150% more effective doesn't seem that far out of line.
Again, HOLOFIELD STACKS WITH SAVES. You can't just treat it as a 4++, and this idea that a one-facing 4++ is worth 25 points in the first place is entirely your own invention.
The lord of skulls appears to have been bumped to 888 from about 880. They piled every special rule they could on it to give it those points.
And it's worth maybe 500 or so at most. There is no way the fluff cost is only 8 points more than it should be. If it really was that small a difference the nobody would be declaring it a garbage unit over a 1% difference in price.
The reason I say use the modified strD is BECAUSE I think GW priced strD too low for what it gives you.
So then you admit that GW doesn't use the point system you're using.
The baneblade is a general purpose weapon loadout designed to cover maximum area, agreed? So when you kit out the revenant with an 18" help storm template with super torrent that wounds on a 3+, is ap2 and rolls 3d6 for armor penetration I would say those two would be the best comparison in regards to coverage and optimal target choices.
No it isn't a valid comparison at all because D-weapons are so blatantly overpowered. Nobody takes the flamer Revenant because D-weapons do everything does and also kill other stuff. You're trying to defend the Revenant that people actually use with a straw man comparison involving the bad Revenant against a tank that has a "similar role". And that role seems to be "make my comparison work and justify the Revenant".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.
Why should a unit that is already weak for its point cost have to have its stats nerfed to justify a point decrease? Any reasonable person would just reduce the point cost of the Shadowsword to balance it. Your argument that you need to change its stats first seems to be focused on defending the accuracy your design rules (since dropping the Shadowsword's price without nerfing its stats would mean that your assigned price must be wrong) rather than fixing the real-world problem.
The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.
Seriously, we keep telling you this but you keep refusing to acknowledge it: HOLOFIELDS STACK WITH SAVES. You get a 50% damage reduction IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER DAMAGE REDUCTION. If you have a 3++ then you roll your 3++ AND you roll the 4+ holofield. You can't price it like a mere invulnerable save because it is a much more powerful ability.
OK, it gets the bonus in addition to other saves. It is STILL paying 5 more points for survivability than an av 14 all the way around walker. If you give that imaginary walker a cove save or a power happened gave it an invuln save, how much more survivable is that other walker? It only is weaker against a 16% chance on a weapon that may not be on the table while being completely immune to things that can PEN the revenant.
It is worth the same on both a regular vehicle or the superheavy, because it all comes down to how often it is needed to work. Say you gave it to a warwalker (not allowed, by the way because it is limited to superheavies and fortifications in the vdr) would you want to pay 100 extra points for that bonus? No, it would be a waste of points.
The bigger the unit, the better the protection you want. How often does a riptide need to use its energy shield against missile launchers? How about autocannon? If they were priced according to how durable the unit is as a percentage, the game would be a total mess for game size.
With the lord of skulls, your proposal would make it pay an additional 250+ points for the 5++ it gets for being a daemon. Do you really think it is worth almost 1300 points?
The holofields aren't a save, they are there to REPLACE the durability that the revenant can't have due to limitations on eldar vehicles. It negates hits, but more things that hit can wound it than ANY other titan in the game. It has less armor than the imperial knights for crying out loud.
Xerics wrote: Also it isn't his VDR. He took what GW made a long time ago and updated it to current edition and should be commended for that.
And maybe he should be commended for that, but it's not what he's doing now. Now he's trying to claim that his point system is the one that GW actually uses, and must be accurate. The problem with this should be obvious since the original VDR was NOT the same as the system GW used for official rules. GW explicitly stated that it's not the same system, and if you try to create official vehicles with the VDR you don't get the same point costs.
Not to mention that a Void shield absorbs an entire D shot with a 100% chance.
No it doesn't, because in real games nobody will ever shoot D-weapons at void shields.
Just because you choose to play on a tiny board doesn't mean the Revenant isn't balanced. It just isn't balanced for the circumstances YOU want to play with.
It isn't balanced on ANY realistic gaming table. If the only way for a unit to be balanced is to rent an entire football field to play the game then the unit isn't balanced. Even full-scale Apocalpse tables are limited to about 6' across since you have to be able to reach models in the center of the table. This makes the Revenant's shorter range irrelevant 99% of the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: OK, it gets the bonus in addition to other saves. It is STILL paying 5 more points for survivability than an av 14 all the way around walker. If you give that imaginary walker a cove save or a power happened gave it an invuln save, how much more survivable is that other walker? It only is weaker against a 16% chance on a weapon that may not be on the table while being completely immune to things that can PEN the revenant.
Why are we assuming that the AV 14 walker gets a save but you can't put a similar ability on the Revenant? The fair comparison is the AV 14 vehicle with a save against the Revenant with a save AND a holofield.
It is worth the same on both a regular vehicle or the superheavy, because it all comes down to how often it is needed to work. Say you gave it to a warwalker (not allowed, by the way because it is limited to superheavies and fortifications in the vdr) would you want to pay 100 extra points for that bonus? No, it would be a waste of points.
...
If a holofield isn't worth 100 points on a war walker then it isn't worth the same on both a superheavy and a regular vehicle. You just refuted your own argument here!
If they were priced according to how durable the unit is as a percentage, the game would be a total mess for game size.
The game wouldn't be a mess at all. The only "problem" would be that your vehicle cost rules wouldn't work the way you want them to. Players never have to see the piece-by-piece cost that goes into a unit, they just see the final point cost regardless of how you as a game designer calculated it.
With the lord of skulls, your proposal would make it pay an additional 250+ points for the 5++ it gets for being a daemon. Do you really think it is worth almost 1300 points?
Where are you getting this ridiculous argument from?
Perigrin, how many time must you be told that I DIDNT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER! Games workshop, chapter approved vehicle design rules, look them up. I keep saying that it IS better than a 4++, by (and read this number carefully) 150% and priced it accordingly.
I based my point total for every blast type strength D weapon with the volcano cannon as the base because it was the only single blast variant. It literally cannot be too cheap of a weapon because I based all of my other numbers off of it. The revenant pulsars are priced slightly above the volcano cannon because the volcano has double the range, but half the shots. If the volcano and pulsar had the same range, the volcano cannon would be exactly half the points because they would have the exact same profile but one fires twice. How hard is that to understand? The shadowsword ONLY underperformed because it waste points on range, nothing else.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It is 100 points worth of survivability, it just isn't needed on something the size of a warwalker. And go ahead and ignore the fact I say it isn't allowed to have it anyway.
I was asked to try and make my update as close to gw's pricing as possible, so I did. Whenever I found a discrepancy, I would look at the math to see what may have happened. Look at the ork examples above if you don't believe me.
Use my vdr, test run it against other units, see what it does. Then you can tell me it doesn't work.
If the point totals above are correct, I am indeed going to have to modify the primary weapons of some of the baneblade variants.
With my system (using the stats listed above, assuming av 14/13/12)
Baneblade 505 (not bad)
Bane hammer 530 (WAY OFF, not sure how that happened but thank you!)
Shadowsword 455
Banesword 430 (I don't like being above, I'll address it)
Doom hammer 465 (again, wondering if I somehow didn't take another weapon into account or if the price changed for the better)
Hell hammer 530
Stormlord 582! (No excuse for this, I apologize for that large of a flubb. Will definitely fix that when I get a chance this weekend.)
Now, if the av on some is higher, that may account for some of the points above. If not then yes, I will have some tinkering to do.
So you're creating points values without being certain of what these units even possess?
If you don't place them at maximum distance, then the shadowsword are wasting points on unneeded range. That was my point with this whole thing! If other superheavies were designed to fight on a 6x4 table, the revenant wouldn't stand out at all.
I can fight on a 6x4 table, and have a Battlecannon be out of range if there's a line to the corner. A Shadowsword should have a longer range than that, being a titan Sniper. And being a titan sniper, its main gun needs a new profile entirely.
So I have (I think) 127 pts. The only thing I'm not sure on is if I screwed up Wounds (is it 25 pts per Wound, or 25 pts for all 3 Wounds?) and Attacks (is it 3 pts for each attack, including the base 1, or is it 3 pts for each attack after the base?)
Depending, I am looking at 124-177 pts for the model (I think).
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Perigrin, how many time must you be told that I DIDNT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER! Games workshop, chapter approved vehicle design rules, look them up.
The VDR "holofield" is not the same thing as the holofield the Revenant has. Its point cost is irrelevant. You invented a new point cost for an entirely unrelated upgrade that just happens to share the name as the old rule.
Also, GW never used the VDR for official rules, so attempting to apply VDR point costs to official units is completely inappropriate.
I keep saying that it IS better than a 4++, by (and read this number carefully) 150% and priced it accordingly.
Why 150% Why not 140% or 175%?
I based my point total for every blast type strength D weapon with the volcano cannon as the base because it was the only single blast variant. It literally cannot be too cheap of a weapon because I based all of my other numbers off of it.
...
Did you really just say "the numbers can't be wrong because otherwise my rules would be wrong"?
The revenant pulsars are priced slightly above the volcano cannon because the volcano has double the range, but half the shots.
...
Who cares about the range? Shot count is WAY more important than the range difference, so the pulsar should be almost double the cost of the volcano cannon. Your rules do not reflect the reality of the game.
If the volcano and pulsar had the same range, the volcano cannon would be exactly half the points because they would have the exact same profile but one fires twice. How hard is that to understand? The shadowsword ONLY underperformed because it waste points on range, nothing else.
You're massively over-valuing the range difference, and even if the Shadowsword over-pays for range so what? Reduce its point cost without reducing its range and you've made it better balanced. This balance approach is only a problem when your primary goal is to defend the accuracy of your standardized point structure.
It is 100 points worth of survivability, it just isn't needed on something the size of a warwalker.
On a Revenant it's more than 100 points worth. On a warwalker it's less than 100 points worth. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that an upgrade can have different values depending on what you put it on?
I was asked to try and make my update as close to gw's pricing as possible, so I did.
And you failed, because GW doesn't use a VDR-style system for their point costs. You're trying to reverse-engineer something that doesn't exist.
I do, we run things with this rule set all the time. I've never had a problem with what was put on the table, whether it was a superheavy walker variant of the wraithknight or my buddy's custom robots for his space marines based on the gundam models he uses for them.
I wanted to share it, I wanted to show how it worked, apparently people have so little faith in anything GW does that the minute someone shows they may actually have an idea of what they are doing in regards to points that person must automatically be wrong.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I wanted to share it, I wanted to show how it worked, apparently people have so little faith in anything GW does that the minute someone shows they may actually have an idea of what they are doing in regards to points that person must automatically be wrong.
But you haven't shown that. You've just demonstrated that if you assume GW's point costs are mostly correct and fudge the numbers a bit when they don't line up right you can create your own system that generates similar point costs. The fact that your system sometimes agrees with GW doesn't mean that the resulting point costs (or GW's costs) are balanced.
Also, once again, GW does not use a VDR-style system. And they never used the original VDR for official rules, it was purely a separate "build your own vehicle" project that had nothing to do with GW's own work. You're trying to reverse-engineer something that doesn't exist.
As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true
And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Here's an example:
Peregrine's Design Rules (PDR):
1) Add up the AV. Multiply by the HP. Multiply by 100000000000000. This is the point cost of the vehicle.
There, anything you make will be over costed. Erring on the side of making everything too expensive doesn't mean that the "fair" costs are determined by a VDR-style formula instead of iterative playtesting and/or guessing at what "feels" right.
And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.
Which is what you'd expect given that the VDR costs are multiple editions out of date and were never the actual costs used in official rules.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true
And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.
Look Lyth, trying to justify GW costing is pointless, as you can prove that things are unbalanced and nonsensical. CSM and SM units cost about the same, but due to special rules and cheaper (and better) gear, SM are far more effective.
If you made the costings your own, that'd be fine and then you could tweak things to improve balance, but the fact remains that GW NEVER uses construction rules. Trying to justify GW's decisions with logical fallacies like "if they made something overcosted, then that'd make my rules wrong, therefore they were right" is not going to get us anywhere.
It's been a long time since I saw a proper Peregrine beatdown in General Discussion. Glad to have you back. We could have used you during the Dman137 days...
Here's what I would propose as far a superheavy unit costs go: (Keep in mind these are only as vague benchmarks)
What rules did I use to design this? Gut instinct as to what felt the most balanced, and the need to keep certain units out of lower-point games. Look at it this way: now its easy to make your points allotment for an Apocalypse team game! Just bring two Warhounds!
Here's an example of why GW is not using a VDR-style formula: the 6th edition IG codex changed various tank prices from the 5th edition versions, but they changed in inconsistent ways.
The LR Demolisher got more expensive despite getting a nerf rules-wise (losing the old "lumbering behemoth" rule and being crippled by the ordnance rule on its main gun) and gaining nothing in return.
The LRBT kept the same price despite getting the exact same nerf as the LR Demolisher.
The LR Exterminator got buffed (without the ordnance penalty the "heavy" type is better than the old rule) but got a cheaper point cost.
There is no possible way to rationalize all three of these tanks with a supposed VDR-style point system. If there's a consistent price for unit components (stat lines, weapons, etc) across multiple editions then none of the three tanks should have changed prices as none of their individual stats/weapons/etc changed. If there is a consistent price for unit components that is updated with every new codex and edition then all three tanks should have had their points changed in the exact same way (since they all had the exact same rule change). The ONLY way to explain what we see here is if GW assigns point costs based on what feels right (with or without playtesting to refine the initial number) without any kind of formula to calculate them. Someone at GW said "the LRBT is about right, the Demolisher is too good and needs to be more expensive, and the Exterminator is too weak and needs to be cheaper".
If you try to reverse-engineer a VDR-style system to produce those LRBT costs then you will never get the right answer.
Heirophant is op points too expensive, give it a 3++ and the tyranid form of it will not die. You priced the shadowsword higher than the core rules and everyone is telling me that is too expensive.you are booking for the reaver, the warhound is too high (not by much) and you are about 80 points too high on the ta'unar.
Perigrin, your points system isn't good. Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?
Neither is yours. At least mine is deliberately bad to prove a point.
Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?
I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.
They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.
Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points. Doing well so far, if you would stop and actually LOOK at what I've done so far.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.
You're missing the point here. All three vehicles got the exact same rule change, so if GW is using a VDR-style formula to calculate their costs then they should have all received the same point adjustment (since no other rules changed). But in reality one increased in price, one stayed the same, and one decreased in price. Your system is indisputably not the one GW uses.
Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points.
But that's not what you're doing, you're creating your own system and then trying to defend that system. GW is not using your process, so pointing out how your process adds up to certain values doesn't tell us anything about what GW did.
Neither is yours. At least mine is deliberately bad to prove a point.
Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?
I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.
If you change strD, how is it bad? Tell me. How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there. And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home. But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.
How will I ever be as mentally capable as you? Show me how you fix point totals in 40k so everything is balanced.
You show me how it is done, peregrine. I'll check back in the morning.
Because you're trying to explain how the Revenant is balanced, now how your house-ruled version of the Revenant matches your own point system that you used to create it. If you want to talk about the GW Revenant being balanced then you have to use the D-weapon rules as-printed.
How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there.
Because floor games with entire rooms as the battlefield are so absurdly rare compared to normal games that making ANY balance decisions based on floor games is insane.
And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home. But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.
Yep. That's what happens when you build your system based on an approach that is fundamentally broken. If the premise of your system is that a 4+ invulnerable save is worth the same number of points no matter what unit it is applied to then your system is wrong. A system that assumes fixed point costs for upgrades/stat lines/etc will never work in a game with such a wide range of unit scaling as 40k.
Show me how you fix point totals in 40k so everything is balanced.
Guess at what the points should be. Playtest. Revise those numbers based on playtesting. Playtest more. Revise. Repeat until you have numbers that are accurate enough. The process is simple, it just takes months/years of effort from a decent group of people.
Peregrine wrote: I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.
If you change strD, how is it bad?
How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there.
And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home.
But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.
It's nonsense, because GW supposedly set prices based on the old S(D) rules, not on the imaginary S(D) rules that you just pulled out of your butt. Prices that you have claimed to be completely fair, but others know not to be correct for on the sorts of tabletop that GW would have used when they set the prices in the first place.
A Warhound should pay more for it's 2-shot S(D) Turbo-laser Destructors, compared to the shorter-ranged 2-shot Eldar Pulsars on a Revenant Titan. However, it shouldn't be 96/60 more, because 96" range isn't functionally that much better than 60" range on a typical 4' x 8' table. And in no way does a single 120" shot from a Volcano Cannon trade with 2x 60" shots from an Eldar Pulsar. Claiming the Volcano Cannon to be correct "because I said so" is also ridiculous, because floor games just don't occur that often, and that's not how GW would have set the price.
I think just about everyone is saying that they read enough to know it is bad. I would simply remind you that quantity of effort does not guarantee quality of result. That is why people are saying your VDR is bad, despite all of your efforts invested.
It's also wrong that you claim it took "minutes" to determine what was wrong with your system. In my case, I spotted the problem within SECONDS of you claiming the Revenant to be correct, and then claiming the Baneblade to also be correct. And it got worse when you said the Shadowsword was correct. I'm sorry, but none of that is possibly true when the crowd is so clearly opposed. Now it may work fine for you and your group; however, that just means that your small group is not indicative of the population at large, and should not be used to make such grand statements.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.
Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points. Doing well so far, if you would stop and actually LOOK at what I've done so far.
I did, and it concluded that Baneblade cannons are worth twice as much as they actually are.
You're basing your system off a broken system that has no rules. If you wrote it from the ground up, it'd be different. But you're copying GW and saying "this much be right , because I made a system that adds everything up to these costs" without working out if your item-by-item breakdown is a fair asessement.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I do, we run things with this rule set all the time. I've never had a problem with what was put on the table, whether it was a superheavy walker variant of the wraithknight or my buddy's custom robots for his space marines based on the gundam models he uses for them. .
Has anybody really tried to break it? Probably not.
For example, consider an Imperial superheavy walker with AV14/14/12 front, 6 HP, and SIX 72" S8 AP1 Vanquisher Cannons (Armorbane for +2d6AP), Void shields, Jet pack and Stealth. Fast and hitting like a ton of bricks with 6x 72" S8 AP1 shots, averaging 3 hits that should penetrate AV14. Annoying too, because they get the JSJ thing via the Jet pack. When the enemy gets a bead on them, Stealth! If it gets hit, Void Shield! If it needs to bug out? Move, Run, Thrust and it's gone.
How many points for this? Only ~460 points, but it's fair, because I built it using the VDR.
Seriously, nobody checked the stats tables. 15 points for a BS3 Vanquisher Cannon? and only +10% more for AP1? Compare that with a long15-pt Multi-Melta for more points, but far less effective range
(To be fair, this took a few minutes, but it only took seconds to pick out the weak parts of the tables).
Meanwhile, the Baneblade with a pair of sponsons comes in at almost exactly its cost in escalation, wherein it got a nerf and a points increase, despite being underpowered beforehand.
Let's spend a few minutes breaking it, just to have fun. A small heavy vehicle with AV 10/10/10 and 2 HP armed with a bolter costs -1 point. Yes, NEGATIVE one point. Every one of these vehicles you add to your list increases your available points by one, in addition to the side effect of spamming an obscene number of AV 10 bolters all over the table. You could literally fill the entire surface of one of the OP's giant floor games with these vehicles, if you felt like making enough models to do it. Or play a 500 point game where you bring 3000 of these and dump a pile of them into the general area of your deployment zone around the Warlord titan you brought. To a 500 point game. They'd actually be good meatshield screens for your titan, if you weren't almost guaranteed to win the game in your first shooting phase. You know, because the OP's VDR rules let you bring a Warlord titan to a 500 point game.
Conclusion: 9 months of development and playtesting don't mean anything if nobody bothered to test your rules properly.
I tried making Thunderwolf Cavalry. Not Monstrous Creatues, but close enough. I'm not sure I'm doing it right, but....
W3 = 75pts
Sv3 = 10pts
Beast/Cav = 15pts
Thunderhammer = 15pts
3+ Invulnerable = 60pts
Don't know how to reduce my initiative but lets say -10pts.
165ish points per TWC.
Let's spend a few minutes breaking it, just to have fun. A small heavy vehicle with AV 10/10/10 and 2 HP armed with a bolter costs -1 point. Yes, NEGATIVE one point. Every one of these vehicles you add to your list increases your available points by one, in addition to the side effect of spamming an obscene number of AV 10 bolters all over the table. You could literally fill the entire surface of one of the OP's giant floor games with these vehicles, if you felt like making enough models to do it. Or play a 500 point game where you bring 3000 of these and dump a pile of them into the general area of your deployment zone around the Warlord titan you brought. To a 500 point game. They'd actually be good meatshield screens for your titan, if you weren't almost guaranteed to win the game in your first shooting phase. You know, because the OP's VDR rules let you bring a Warlord titan to a 500 point game.
Conclusion: 9 months of development and playtesting don't mean anything if nobody bothered to test your rules properly.
Trololo
I'm kinda glad GW doesn't use tables, they'd make this exact error.
I'm kinda glad GW doesn't use tables, they'd make this exact error.
They probably would, though not as dramatic. What's really sad is this kind of min/max design is the first thing I tried with the OP's rules, and one of the first things I'd try to break any system with. It's a classic approach to exploiting a system: any model/unit, no matter how pathetic, has non-zero value just for being a model/unit and therefore every game has a certain minimum cost that units need to have. For example, in X-Wing you will never see a 5-point ship, even the cheapest basic TIE fighter is 12 points. Why? Because merely occupying a base worth of space on the table has a certain minimum value, no matter how poor the ship's stat line is. So if you can find a way to design a unit that is cheaper than the game's minimum you can create massive balance problems by spamming it. It's something the old VDR system had problems with, you could make 5-point immobile vehicles with single lasguns and spam such obscene numbers of them that you'd break the game.
The fact that the OP's system doesn't account for this problem shows that they didn't think very hard about their whole approach to evaluating the power of a unit. The fact that they somehow, after 9 months of "development", missed the fact that you could create a vehicle with a negative point cost is just ing hilarious.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Perigrin, how many time must you be told that I DIDNT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER! Games workshop, chapter approved vehicle design rules, look them up.
I tried to keep out of this, but failed, sorry.
What you are actually saying is that the Revenant's price is accurate because GW priced it at 900 points? Even if it doesn't suit the VDR that you keep referring to? I'm confused.
121 pts. Or would it be 177? Do I pay 25 pts for each Wound, or do I pay 25 pts for all three Wounds? Do I pay 3 pts for all three attacks, 3 pts for each attack? If I pay for each attack do I include the 1 base attack as well?
Right. Okay. We've aruged Lyth into a bit of a corner, and Lyth's arguments are becoming repetitive. In the interest of progress (because I would like to see a VDR that works), lets try this from another angle:
To break it down, I will show (with my vehicle design rules) where its points are actually spent.
Armor value: 30 points
9 hullpoints superheavy walker (with all that entails): 200 points
Titan holofield: 100 points
Two pulsars: 185 points each
Revenant missile launcher: 20 points
Revenant jumpjets: 165 points
Agile: 15 points
Making the revenant 900 points.
This is the source of my argument and Peregrine's argument. In this section, you pointed out that the Revenant costed 900 points, and then made a breakdown of how you thought those 900 points were distributed. When you found that it tallied with your VDR, you concluded that it was balanced due to costing 900 points. This argument reads as follows:
Revenant = 900 points, therefore it is balanced.
Our counter argument is that, no, that is not the case. due to its ability to negate most of the incoming damage, the Revenant is practically impossible to kill without equally efficient counter-units. And these counter units for the most part do not exist, unless you decided to chuck £1250 into a Warlord Titan.
Your further arguments seem to have been based on the assumption that we are attacking your VDR. What we are trying to argue is that the result of the VDR, in this case, was not a balanced unit. This appears to be due to you taking in the costs of numerous GW constructs, and then rationalising which item is worth what, according to GW.
While that would have been a fun way to see what GW massively over/under values, it does not make balanced units, as they come to the costs that GW gave them. This can be concluded based on the combined thousands of games we on Dakka have played. We have found via your reverse-engineered VDR that GW believes the Baneblade Cannon to be worth a 160 point increase to a vehicle, as an arbitrary value. Just because it has this points value, doe not mean it is an appropriate price.
We have then been able to find other things that were not priced according to effectiveness, such as Peregrine's 3000 heavy bolter tanks and a Warlord Titan coming in at 500 points.
What this shows is that the points do not correlate with capability.
Your counter argument to this has been "since it adds up to GW's total, that makes it balanced". This cannot be true in many circumstances, due to GW's unit costing being inherently unbalanced. And this is why we are getting annoyed.
If you were to take some advice, and allow further testing to be done, the points values of each individual item could be worked out to what they should cost, and not what they do cost. Retaining GW's values is of no help to the community, as they can be exploited, and do not fix any current issues.
I tried making Thunderwolf Cavalry. Not Monstrous Creatues, but close enough. I'm not sure I'm doing it right, but....
W3 = 75pts
Sv3 = 10pts
Beast/Cav = 15pts
Thunderhammer = 15pts
3+ Invulnerable = 60pts
Don't know how to reduce my initiative but lets say -10pts.
165ish points per TWC.
Don't lower your initiative, why would you do that? And all three wounds cost 25 total. You are at 125 points for this beast with 3++, and init 4 strength 10 attacks.
As for the bolter toting small vehicles, you have a point, I may not have increased the points enough for low armor. But you would have to MAKE 3000 of these in order to do what you are saying. (Might add a minimum point value per size category)
With the multi vanquisher cannon toting superheavy, is 445 points worth of dedicated tank hunter really that far off? I wanna see it on the table, those giant 6 barrels sticking out however you feel they should while also recognizably being equipped with jetpacks would be a sweet looking walker! Remember it has to be bigger than a land raider and modeled to be WYSIWYG, so I don't know how much cover it is going to get on the table...
I can be wrong, but I definitely feel that eldar holofields are worth 3 voidshields. I feel they are DEFINITLY worth more than an invul save, and when I built the revenant I started with creating the pulsars point totals by balancing them against the volcano cannon, then applied all the av, hullpoints, holofields, agile, and missile launchers. When I was done, I compared it to the current revenan's point total and found it was 165 points cheaper than the current rules. 165 points spent on mobility of that level didn't sound absurd to me, so that was where I put it.
I tried to remain true to the pricing of the leman Russ tanks apparent cost because at the time I was building it I was attempting to stay where games workshop had their point totals. After a while I had been asked to rebalance points and I started at the highest end of the spectrum with superheavy weapons.
I will get to the lower cannons in the not too distant future, hell the double autocannon variant of the leman Russ pays less for its primary gun than the predator does! I am willing to listen to reason, and I am grateful for the feedback here.
Let's spend a few minutes breaking it, just to have fun. A small heavy vehicle with AV 10/10/10 and 2 HP armed with a bolter costs -1 point. Yes, NEGATIVE one point. Every one of these vehicles you add to your list increases your available points by one, in addition to the side effect of spamming an obscene number of AV 10 bolters all over the table. You could literally fill the entire surface of one of the OP's giant floor games with these vehicles, if you felt like making enough models to do it. Or play a 500 point game where you bring 3000 of these and dump a pile of them into the general area of your deployment zone around the Warlord titan you brought. To a 500 point game. They'd actually be good meatshield screens for your titan, if you weren't almost guaranteed to win the game in your first shooting phase. You know, because the OP's VDR rules let you bring a Warlord titan to a 500 point game.
Conclusion: 9 months of development and playtesting don't mean anything if nobody bothered to test your rules properly.
10/10
This post goes beyond argument. It's... It's poetry.
Meh, I prefer haiku. If every one of his tanks was equal in size to say a land speeder, how much room would he have on the table? How did he get them there, back a pickup truck up the the table?
Say you took 10 minutes to custom build every one of these little buggers, it would take thirty thousand minutes to have them all done. That's more than twenty days straight if you don't sleep. Just to cart them around with a warlord titan and hope someone will play you. I don't think it would be worth it.
Obviously no one would do it, but that doesn't mean it should be possible in the rules/vehicle design system thingy. You can't balance things by hoping someone doesn't do something ridiculous but legal in the rules.
Selym wrote: Your counter argument to this has been "since it adds up to GW's total, that makes it balanced". This cannot be true in many circumstances, due to GW's unit costing being inherently unbalanced. And this is why we are getting annoyed.
Spot on. (I get to quote myself now)
SirDonlad wrote: Fair enough for spending time trying to rationalize the points assigned by GW to these units; but to me, thats like trying to rationalize a nations military presence around the world by examining how it's defence spending is assigned.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Say you took 10 minutes to custom build every one of these little buggers, it would take thirty thousand minutes to have them all done. That's more than twenty days straight if you don't sleep. Just to cart them around with a warlord titan and hope someone will play you. I don't think it would be worth it.
You really don't get it.
It's not just the -1 pt vehicle. It's the whole thing. The most casual review of any of the tables shows that there are numerous flaws. Everybody who made a thing showed a different flaw, and it's laughable that your 9 months didn't uncover.
It is not reasonable for my vanqwalker to be that effective at killing very heavy armor. It is not reasonable for the not-TWC to weigh in at 165 pts.
The best thing for you to do is to figure out what's wrong with each of the "breaks", because they ARE broken, each in slightly different ways. The fact that you fail to see why only further reinforces how weak your review and playtest system is.
This system will never work, because a 2+ save is much more valuable to a Riptide than to a lowly Terminator. There are multipliers at work on every model, and a single detail can make a model's worth jump or plummet. The devil has ALWAYS been in the details in 40K, and GW is one of the least detail-oriented organizations in existence unless it's a detail on a model.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: With the multi vanquisher cannon toting superheavy, is 445 points worth of dedicated tank hunter really that far off?
I wanna see it on the table, those giant 6 barrels sticking out however you feel they should while also recognizably being equipped with jetpacks would be a sweet looking walker! Remember it has to be bigger than a land raider and modeled to be WYSIWYG, so I don't know how much cover it is going to get on the table...
Absolutely it is. Take 2 of them (<900 pts) against 3 Tau Supersuits (>1000 pts)on a regular 4x8 board, and it's no contest. The Vanquishers will win far more than 9:10 ratio. You completely fail to see how that thing would work.
Modeling isn't the hard part - there are loads of bitz to work with. The point is that it's a broken unit that someone can (and will) build toward if that's what your rules allow. That's why VDR is no longer part of the game.
Martel732 wrote: This system will never work, because a 2+ save is much more valuable to a Riptide than to a lowly Terminator. There are multipliers at work on every model, and a single detail can make a model's worth jump or plummet. The devil has ALWAYS been in the details in 40K, and GW is one of the least detail-oriented organizations in existence unless it's a detail on a model.
I have highlighted this on his VDR thread, wherein I double the durability of a pseudo-baneblade for 30 points, instead of the 300 it should have cost, according to the VDR.
I tried making Thunderwolf Cavalry. Not Monstrous Creatues, but close enough. I'm not sure I'm doing it right, but....
W3 = 75pts
Sv3 = 10pts
Beast/Cav = 15pts
Thunderhammer = 15pts
3+ Invulnerable = 60pts
Don't know how to reduce my initiative but lets say -10pts.
165ish points per TWC.
Don't lower your initiative, why would you do that? And all three wounds cost 25 total. You are at 125 points for this beast with 3++, and init 4 strength 10 attacks.
Because Thunderhammers force you to strike at Initiative 1, so paying for Init 4 is a waste of points.
I tried making Thunderwolf Cavalry. Not Monstrous Creatues, but close enough. I'm not sure I'm doing it right, but....
W3 = 75pts
Sv3 = 10pts
Beast/Cav = 15pts
Thunderhammer = 15pts
3+ Invulnerable = 60pts
Don't know how to reduce my initiative but lets say -10pts.
165ish points per TWC.
Don't lower your initiative, why would you do that? And all three wounds cost 25 total. You are at 125 points for this beast with 3++, and init 4 strength 10 attacks.
Because Thunderhammers force you to strike at Initiative 1, so paying for Init 4 is a waste of points.
Isn't that supposedly taken into account for all weapons that force you to use I1?
Let's spend a few minutes breaking it, just to have fun. A small heavy vehicle with AV 10/10/10 and 2 HP armed with a bolter costs -1 point. Yes, NEGATIVE one point. Every one of these vehicles you add to your list increases your available points by one, in addition to the side effect of spamming an obscene number of AV 10 bolters all over the table. You could literally fill the entire surface of one of the OP's giant floor games with these vehicles, if you felt like making enough models to do it. Or play a 500 point game where you bring 3000 of these and dump a pile of them into the general area of your deployment zone around the Warlord titan you brought. To a 500 point game. They'd actually be good meatshield screens for your titan, if you weren't almost guaranteed to win the game in your first shooting phase. You know, because the OP's VDR rules let you bring a Warlord titan to a 500 point game.
Conclusion: 9 months of development and playtesting don't mean anything if nobody bothered to test your rules properly.
Exalted. I can just imagine a horde of dumpy Italian tankettes with boltguns glued on t them charging across a battlefield in front of a Warlord Titan.
1) Make a plasticard box
2) Attach machinegun equivalent
3) Spray paint black, drybrush silver
4) Don't bother with wheels, it can "float". Or use bottlecaps and the like
5) ???
6) Never be allowed to play that list
Selym wrote: 1) Make a plasticard box
2) Attach machinegun equivalent
3) Spray paint black, drybrush silver
4) Don't bother with wheels, it can "float". Or use bottlecaps and the like
5) ???
6) Never be allowed to play that list
If you have a gak ton of money and you want to be fancy...
Selym wrote: 1) Make a plasticard box
2) Attach machinegun equivalent
3) Spray paint black, drybrush silver
4) Don't bother with wheels, it can "float". Or use bottlecaps and the like
5) ???
6) Never be allowed to play that list
If you have a gak ton of money and you want to be fancy....
Just be careful you don't drive the people who help modify/create point lists like the OP has. When the time comes and GW Sigamrtizes 40K it will be people like him who figure out how to give everything a point value again.
Xerics wrote: Just be careful you don't drive the people who help modify/create point lists like the OP has. When the time comes and GW Sigamrtizes 40K it will be people like him who figure out how to give everything a point value again.
Or, we could just use any of the existing Codices and their printed point values? It wouldn't be any worse than the OP's effort.
____
TheCustomLime wrote: I think we've just found one of the worst dollars to points ratio unit in 40k.
Let's spend a few minutes breaking it, just to have fun. A small heavy vehicle with AV 10/10/10 and 2 HP armed with a bolter costs -1 point. Yes, NEGATIVE one point. Every one of these vehicles you add to your list increases your available points by one, in addition to the side effect of spamming an obscene number of AV 10 bolters all over the table. You could literally fill the entire surface of one of the OP's giant floor games with these vehicles, if you felt like making enough models to do it. Or play a 500 point game where you bring 3000 of these and dump a pile of them into the general area of your deployment zone around the Warlord titan you brought. To a 500 point game. They'd actually be good meatshield screens for your titan, if you weren't almost guaranteed to win the game in your first shooting phase. You know, because the OP's VDR rules let you bring a Warlord titan to a 500 point game.
Conclusion: 9 months of development and playtesting don't mean anything if nobody bothered to test your rules properly.
Its been through so many revisions I missed it. Lyth he's got a point, the VDR needs fixing.
A table sounds like a great idea if you start from scratch and build up, not worrying about GW point values and you have marines vs marines. Once you take into account racial abilities though as well as lore it stops working so cleanly.
What GW needs is what league of legends and smite has, thousands of playtests and actual players using a new ruleset over a short period and quick faqability
Tankman131 wrote: A table sounds like a great idea if you start from scratch and build up, not worrying about GW point values and you have marines vs marines..
Tankman131 wrote: A table sounds like a great idea if you start from scratch and build up, not worrying about GW point values and you have marines vs marines..
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Meh, I prefer haiku. If every one of his tanks was equal in size to say a land speeder, how much room would he have on the table? How did he get them there, back a pickup truck up the the table?
I'm creating the model, I can make them as big as I want. I'll probably choose to make them very small.
Say you took 10 minutes to custom build every one of these little buggers, it would take thirty thousand minutes to have them all done. That's more than twenty days straight if you don't sleep. Just to cart them around with a warlord titan and hope someone will play you. I don't think it would be worth it.
1) It doesn't take 10 minutes to build them because I can make whatever I want. In fact, I think I'll use a bag of frozen peas. Psychic frozen peas that have mind lasers represented by bolter stats. I suppose melting is a problem, but hey, they're cheap and I can always buy more for next game. And if a few of them roll onto the floor and die I've got another bag to replace them.
2) The difficulty of buying and/or building a model is not a balancing factor. If your system is based on an assumption that nobody will be able to build the things that break it then your system is wrong.
3) The assumption that people will refuse to play you isn't a balancing factor either, it's a concession that your system is broken and you're depending on people "fixing" it for you by shunning anyone who breaks it.
Ok, adding a minimum to point totals based on taking up table space (basically10 point, plus 5 points per additional hullpoint)
I couldn't start without looking at games workshops pricing because they gave me a plausible system to start with and I am so totally not going to try and build every unit in the game.
Yes a 2+ save means more based on what has it, if you look at the chart for saves it is based on a save to toughness ratio. An invul save is only useful at all if something is ignoring your armor or cover save. Otherwise it is wasted points. I see people complain ALL THE TIME that things like terminators, thousand suns, and c'tan shards pay too much for their invul because weight of fire bring them down too easily, or their cover is better.
You absolutely cannot use peas as a stand in for vehicle, I cannot determine facing, weapon range, or weapon arc due to lack of line of sight. Cute of an idea as that is, it isn't going to make the game more interesting or fun for anyone.
This made me think of a Leman Russ variant shaped like a giant pea with tank treads and a turret.
As for the main discussion it seems the focus on the costing of the Revenant Titan according to the custom VDR took away from the idea of "it was balanced for a different game mode and was ported over to one which unbalanced it", which seemed to be the main point being made at first (and seems to be a sticking point for many units, really).
CrashGordon94 wrote: This made me think of a Leman Russ variant shaped like a giant pea with tank treads and a turret.
As for the main discussion it seems the focus on the costing of the Revenant Titan according to the custom VDR took away from the idea of "it was balanced for a different game mode and was ported over to one which unbalanced it", which seemed to be the main point being made at first (and seems to be a sticking point for many units, really).
Exactly. It was designed for floor sized apocalypse battles but inadvertently doesn't lose any effectiveness in a normal size game due to their choice to make it faster with a shorter range than other units of the same calliber.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Ok, adding a minimum to point totals based on taking up table space (basically10 point, plus 5 points per additional hullpoint)
That's a start, but it's really just a patch that ignores the underlying problem. Your design approach is giving you obviously absurd point costs, so you have to manually fudge the results and make it more appropriate. If you have to special-case rule stuff to keep your system from breaking the game then your system is not working and you should fix the system itself.
Yes a 2+ save means more based on what has it, if you look at the chart for saves it is based on a save to toughness ratio.
But it should also be worth more or less depending on how many wounds the model has. A 2+ save protecting 100 wounds is worth a lot more than a 2+ save protecting one wound.
You absolutely cannot use peas as a stand in for vehicle, I cannot determine facing, weapon range, or weapon arc due to lack of line of sight.
That's not my problem. Some GW models have that same issues with determining facing and arcs but they're still legal.
Also, you're just nitpicking my deliberately ridiculous choice of "model" and ignoring the much greater issue that your system produced a broken result. I could replace the frozen peas with small cubes with a dot to represent the 360* bolter turret and the result would be the same. It just wouldn't be quite as amusing to think about.
Cute of an idea as that is, it isn't going to make the game more interesting or fun for anyone.
You're right, it doesn't make the game interesting or fun for anyone. That's why your system is broken.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Exactly. It was designed for floor sized apocalypse battles but inadvertently doesn't lose any effectiveness in a normal size game due to their choice to make it faster with a shorter range than other units of the same calliber.
Which is completely inappropriate because floor-sized Apocalypse battles are absurdly rare compared to normal table games. If your cost system is based on an assumption that floor-sized games are relevant then your system is broken.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Exactly. It was designed for floor sized apocalypse battles but inadvertently doesn't lose any effectiveness in a normal size game due to their choice to make it faster with a shorter range than other units of the same calliber.
Seems to be the biggest issue many have with these kind of units as whole.
With that in mind, maybe you should bifurcate your VDR into a "normal game version" and "Apocalypse version" which each have different pricing for certain things to handle this?
If the cheapest a vehicle can be is 20 points, you may as well make the vehicle worth 20 points. The purpose of these rules is to let people make awesome models for the game and have a decent idea as to their power level. Then playtest to find their sweet spot.
Floor sized games are relevant if the distances utilised by units would show their supposed use. If you don't want to have those ranges, adjust the points and change the ranges. But if you want in on a game that size, I expect you to have paid the points for the range you bring to the game.
Everything has a price, even the lower vehicle armor values because they have more and more threats as the av drops (the reason for the negative in some areas is that small arms fire becomes a threat, meaning they are more apt to be shot in a game due to the more readily available weapons)
Your argument that some things are too expensive because they never have to shoot farther than 6' so they shouldn't have to pay for those bonuses is the exact opposite of balance. If the shadowsword dropped to a 60" range, it would lower the price of the vehicle by 80 points. With the chasis and barrel size it will still guarantee hit anywhere on a normal table.
If you wanted to drop the points without lowering the range, then by all means here are the points. But I won't price weapons below what they should cost in the vdr because some people do play those huge games, and I think they understand what that range value actually does for their games.
That seems to be one of the things that could be different for the Apoc VDR and the normal VDR, the former would price range like that while maybe the latter would stop charging points or give a discount for diminishing returns past a certain point.
In the vdr there are weapons and options that are only available for Apocalypse level units and fortifications. Superheavies and gargantuan creature have different point levels per wound and hull point, and have their intrinsic benefits built into their overall point scheme. They pay the exact same points for av, and toughness/saves because the strength and ap of weapons systems in the game all follow the same sliding scale of strength and armor penetration. A las cannon will penetrate an av of 12 50% of the time and will wound toughness 8 66% of the time. That number doesn't change at all no matter how many would ds or hull points the model has. What does change is how many times it needs to do so. Those levels can be reduced by the fact that games workshop translated some monstrous creatures from vehicle statlines. Those were the base units I used to balance the mc wounds table. Interestingly enough, if you rebuilt the tyranid monstrous creatures with my vdr they all come out more cost appropriate. (Such as the carnifex, it is 35 points too expensive for its statlines, but the dakka set up is 30 points too cheap. Which is why that particular setup is seen as the only legit way to run them, the math actually balanced them out!)
It isn't, and that's not what I said. The twin linked brainleach devourers are 15 points undercosted per set when compare to other midrange high volume of fire weapons systems. Making a pair of them 30 points more effective than they should be.
A normal carnifex is 35 points too expensive for his damage and survivability level when you compare it to the wraithlord, riptide, talos, chronos, and dreadknight.
The reason people say the dakkafex is the only way to run carnifex competitively is because the weapons exceptional efficiency almost point for point offsets the carnifex's overpriced base cost.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The purpose of these rules is to let people make awesome models for the game and have a decent idea as to their power level. Then playtest to find their sweet spot.
Then why do you keep trying to use your rules to "prove" that GW's point costs are reasonable, if you concede that your numbers are at best a starting point for additional balancing work?
Floor sized games are relevant if the distances utilised by units would show their supposed use. If you don't want to have those ranges, adjust the points and change the ranges. But if you want in on a game that size, I expect you to have paid the points for the range you bring to the game.
Floor-sized games are not relevant because they are incredibly rare. That's like saying we should balance space marines around 5-point games, so tactical squads need to cost a maximum of 5 points each or there's no way to play space marines.
Your argument that some things are too expensive because they never have to shoot farther than 6' so they shouldn't have to pay for those bonuses is the exact opposite of balance.
They should have to pay. They just shouldn't have to pay very much. There is very little difference between 60" range and 120" range so the price difference should be very small. Your proposal that 120" range costs 80 points is just plain absurd. Would you also argue that making the Shadowsword have 200" range should cost another 80 points? What about 2000"? Should a Shadowsword with 2000" range cost ~3000 points (450 base + ~2500 for range)? It should by your numbers, but everyone else understands that this would be blatantly wrong.
If the shadowsword dropped to a 60" range, it would lower the price of the vehicle by 80 points.
The Shadowsword as it is sucks enough already. You could drop 80 points from its price without changing any stats and it would still probably be a weak unit. The only reason to assume that a point drop has to be accompanied by a stat nerf is that if you admit that the Shadowsword could be reduced in points without any stat changes you'd have to admit that your system gives the wrong point cost for it.
But I won't price weapons below what they should cost in the vdr because some people do play those huge games, and I think they understand what that range value actually does for their games.
IOW, defending your system is more important than getting good balance results for the vast majority of games and players.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It isn't, and that's not what I said. The twin linked brainleach devourers are 15 points undercosted per set when compare to other midrange high volume of fire weapons systems. Making a pair of them 30 points more effective than they should be.
A normal carnifex is 35 points too expensive for his damage and survivability level when you compare it to the wraithlord, riptide, talos, chronos, and dreadknight.
The reason people say the dakkafex is the only way to run carnifex competitively is because the weapons exceptional efficiency almost point for point offsets the carnifex's overpriced base cost.
Did that make sense?
Except the Carnifexes is still highly ineffective, even if you knocked those points off. So clearly your system is flawed. Not that you'll listen though, seeing as a member here created a vehicle that inadvertently added more points to spend for your army.
CrashGordon94 wrote: As for the main discussion it seems the focus on the costing of the Revenant Titan according to the custom VDR took away from the idea of "it was balanced for a different game mode and was ported over to one which unbalanced it", which seemed to be the main point being made at first (and seems to be a sticking point for many units, really).
Exactly. It was designed for floor sized apocalypse battles but inadvertently doesn't lose any effectiveness in a normal size game due to their choice to make it faster with a shorter range than other units of the same calliber.
That's a ludicrous statement, as GW designs as a tabletop game around 4x6 tables. Maybe they'd have put a couple tables together, but they aren't crawling around on their hands and knees when they spitball numbers, stats and points costs. GW pulled that 120" range out of thin air, much as you pulled your VDR numbers, stats and justifications out of your butt.
Now, if you've got an actual statement from Tony or one of the other FW guys saying that they specifically designed the Shadowsword as some kind of special unit for those rare games filling an entire multi-garage garage, sure. But I'll want that link to something that's real and verifiable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The purpose of these rules is to let people make awesome models for the game and have a decent idea as to their power level. Then playtest to find their sweet spot.
That's an out and out untruth, because you've done none of that. The real purpose of your rules is to say "Lyth is good at figuring out how GW costed stuff". Which is also untrue.
What playtesting did you do to validate the 15 point price you put on a 72" S8 AP2 Armorbane Vanquisher cannon relative to a 48" Lascannon? How about the value of Stealth on a superheavy?
I'm guessing none.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except the Carnifexes is still highly ineffective, even if you knocked those points off. So clearly your system is flawed. Not that you'll listen though, seeing as a member here created a vehicle that inadvertently added more points to spend for your army.
The funny thing is, the mechanic of taking units that allow you to take more units can be balanced, via special rules. In 40k parlance, there could be a FREE / underpriced / negative price unit that carries the risk of losing extra VPs if it's destroyed. Risk/reward outside the basic points value system. But that ain't what's happening in his VDR.
How is an 85 point carnifex ineffective? Do you realise how absurd that actually sounds?
I have been listening, how is me repeatedly saying that I am working on the changes you are suggesting here me not listening? If you think the shadowsword at an 80 point drop in price (putting it at 375 points, a little over a third of the revenant) isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.
I am adding a column on the far right of the weapon section of the vdr that will be labeled "constricted" giving the balanced point cost of the weapon when limited to a standard 6 foot table.
The leman Russ tank turrets were priced as an extrapolation of their points after taking away the points they pay for survivability. I am a xenos (eldar united and orks) and spacewolves player. I never tried to play with the turrets because I had no interest in them. Nobody else brought it up, so I left it at that. In my thread in the proposed rule section I already showed some of the changes I have done. (Such as the cannon in question being set at 25 points for bs3)
And finally, I know it was designed for those size games because that sort of distance happened all the time in the game it was originally designed for epic 40k. They translated it directly to 40k stats later on, it just kept the bonuses it had. The apocalypse units almost all had their start in a game where the battlefield was as big as a normal table, but they themselves were as small as space marines. That is why they are priced the way they do.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If you think the shadowsword at an 80 point drop in price (putting it at 375 points, a little over a third of the revenant) isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.
It probably isn't good enough. A 375 point Shadowsword with the same range it currently has would be a lot closer to being a decent unit, but it's still a single-role specialist that struggles to make its points back unless the other player brings the perfect targets for it. Sorry if this awkward fact causes problems for your VDR system.
I am adding a column on the far right of the weapon section of the vdr that will be labeled "constricted" giving the balanced point cost of the weapon when limited to a standard 6 foot table.
Why do you even need to worry about this? Once again, giant room-sized games are so rare they're not relevant at all for balancing purposes. You might as well have another column called "irrelevant" which deals with balancing 500,000 point games played on a 1"x1" table.
And finally, I know it was designed for those size games because that sort of distance happened all the time in the game it was originally designed for epic 40k.
What does Epic have to do with anything? The Shadowsword's 40k rules have nothing to do with whatever rules the Epic unit that shares its fluff had.
They translated it directly to 40k stats later on, it just kept the bonuses it had.
No they didn't. Just to state one obvious example the Epic-scale Shadowsword (like the Baneblade and Stormblade) had different weapons. There was no direct translation at all, FW made a 40k-scale tank based on the same fluff as the Epic-scale one but gave it completely new rules for 40k. And then, when GW made the plastic kits they changed some of the weapons again and gave the unit completely new rules.
The apocalypse units almost all had their start in a game where the battlefield was as big as a normal table, but they themselves were as small as space marines. That is why they are priced the way they do.
...
Are you seriously suggesting that GW determined the point costs for the Apocalypse-scale stuff based on their point costs and performance in a completely different game? Have you even looked at the rule and point cost changes those units have gone through since the original FW models?
Yes a 2+ save means more based on what has it, if you look at the chart for saves it is based on a save to toughness ratio. An invul save is only useful at all if something is ignoring your armor or cover save. Otherwise it is wasted points. I see people complain ALL THE TIME that things like terminators, thousand suns, and c'tan shards pay too much for their invul because weight of fire bring them down too easily, or their cover is better.
Which is further evidence that VDR's are going to be ridiculously hard to balance, due to unit effectiveness not being related to the sum of its parts. In the VDR thread, I created a 550 point vehicle with 9 hull points, Av14 and a gakton of firepower. I then doubled its durability for 30 points. That is not a balanced feature.
Spoiler:
Selym wrote: Lets get silly with this VDR, shall we?
Tech Adept Doritosius Chipsicus felt great disdain at the Baneblade variants of the Imperium. So he modified one.
Race: Humans (Free Smoke Launchers and Spotlights) Type: Tank Class: Super Heavy
Armour Value: 14/14/14 [115 pts]
Weapons: -4x Eradicator Nova Cannon (as sponsons) [80 pts] -8x Vanquisher Battle Cannon (mounted as a turret, sorta like a minigun) [120 pts] -1x Eradicator Nova Cannon (hull mounted) [20 pts] -1x Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter (hull mounted) [15 pts]
Hull Points: 9 [200 pts]
Specials: -Energy shield (4++) [30 pts] (What. This statistically makes the vehicle worth 18 Hull Points, which should have added a whopping 300 points to it.)
Total: 580 points.
So. Cheaper than a Hellhammer with one pair of sponsons by 10 points, will outshoot it at any/every instance, has far more Av, and has statistically double the durability (excluding Av changes). At least this is what Baneblades should look like.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Your argument that some things are too expensive because they never have to shoot farther than 6' so they shouldn't have to pay for those bonuses is the exact opposite of balance. If the shadowsword dropped to a 60" range, it would lower the price of the vehicle by 80 points. With the chasis and barrel size it will still guarantee hit anywhere on a normal table.
Range is only part of the issue on the Shadowsword. I greatly object to dropping its range, due to the fluff of the thing, and the fact that it *does* get used in APOC games where it gets houserules to be able to fire from one table to another, right across the room. Its major issue is that it pays a stupid amount for a gun that it largely unimpressive. Liable to miss any SH thing it targets, and is usually negated by cover when it hits troops.
I have been listening, how is me repeatedly saying that I am working on the changes you are suggesting here me not listening? If you think the shadowsword at an 80 point drop in price (putting it at 375 points, a little over a third of the revenant) isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.
I know what to tell you: GW massively overvalues Baneblade variants. They are very, very ineffective vehicles.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I am adding a column on the far right of the weapon section of the vdr that will be labeled "constricted" giving the balanced point cost of the weapon when limited to a standard 6 foot table.
I object to the idea on principle, but GW should have been doing conditional costing from the start.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The leman Russ tank turrets were priced as an extrapolation of their points after taking away the points they pay for survivability. I am a xenos (eldar united and orks) and spacewolves player. I never tried to play with the turrets because I had no interest in them. Nobody else brought it up, so I left it at that. In my thread in the proposed rule section I already showed some of the changes I have done. (Such as the cannon in question being set at 25 points for bs3)
Tbf, looking at a LRBT, removing the points it pays for the hull HB and the armour, and then working out whats left is probably getting an accurate representation of what a LRBT should be paying for its gun. However, mounting them on oher things is where the issue comes. Like how Vanguard Veterans pay 10ppm for power weapons, and the IG pay 15ppm, despite the ridiculous power disparity between the two.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: And finally, I know it was designed for those size games because that sort of distance happened all the time in the game it was originally designed for epic 40k. They translated it directly to 40k stats later on, it just kept the bonuses it had. The apocalypse units almost all had their start in a game where the battlefield was as big as a normal table, but they themselves were as small as space marines. That is why they are priced the way they do.
Don't try to justify GW. They're a bunch of idiots. Better writers than us have tried and failed to make 40k balanced.
Vanguard vets pay less because they are super special snowflakes. Don't space marine sargents, eldar storm guardians, and almost every independent character in the game pay the exact same 15 points for a power weapon? How about powerfists/claws on orks, chaos, and imperial army? The weapon is the same, but the base price of the unit is different. Imperial guard Sargent may only be srt6, but the model is only worth 30 points. The space marine veteran Sargent is str8, but he totals out to a 50 point model. He should be better.
So, dropping the range to give you points back doesn't work because you want the range. Giving you the option of a different point value for playing it on a normal sized table doesn't work because you want it cheaper even in situations where it WILL have the range advantage it does in the fluff. Nothing ( I will repeat my self here because this is what balance should be) NOTHING in the game should get an advantage it doesn't pay for
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Vanguard vets pay less because they are super special snowflakes. Don't space marine sargents, eldar storm guardians, and almost every independent character in the game pay the exact same 15 points for a power weapon? How about powerfists/claws on orks, chaos, and imperial army? The weapon is the same, but the base price of the unit is different. Imperial guard Sargent may only be srt6, but the model is only worth 30 points. The space marine veteran Sargent is str8, but he totals out to a 50 point model. He should be better.
So, dropping the range to give you points back doesn't work because you want the range. Giving you the option of a different point value for playing it on a normal sized table doesn't work because you want it cheaper even in situations where it WILL have the range advantage it does in the fluff. Nothing ( I will repeat my self here because this is what balance should be) NOTHING in the game should get an advantage it doesn't pay for
But I think the point is that it isn't an advantage worth paying for. It is an advantage, and there may be a point level that is worth paying for it (10, 1, 50, whatever) but the law of diminishing returns says that the longer the range is, the less extra the unit will have to pay. So something with 120" inches of range should really only be paying for like, 80" or whathave you.
I'd say it also comes down to people saying the Shadowsword is paying too much for what it already has and getting the same stuff for some lesser amount would be a more appropriate deal.
At least, that's how it seems.
CrashGordon94 wrote: I'd say it also comes down to people saying the Shadowsword is paying too much for what it already has and getting the same stuff for some lesser amount would be a more appropriate deal.
At least, that's how it seems.
I understand what you're saying. But the distance advantage is such a huge total that I can't in good conscience not charge for it. The range difference between it and other superheavy units means that even with the speed of the revenant the shadowsword has two turns to fire without ANY retaliation from the revenant. If the revenant took the 160 points off for mobility, it would be a minimum of 5(!) Turns where the shadowsword could fire without needing to worry about return fire. That has to MEAN something in points. Dropping the range to where the pulsars are, or putting it on a table where the range means nothing, puts the volcano cannon at exactly half what the pulsar is because it is the exact same weapon with half of the shots.
I am telling you the shadowsword is 80 points too expensive on a normal sized table, making its weapon worth half what each of the pulsars are in that scenario. I can not agree that it should stay at that level if it is gaining that kind of advantage.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I understand what you're saying. But the distance advantage is such a huge total that I can't in good conscience not charge for it. The range difference between it and other superheavy units means that even with the speed of the revenant the shadowsword has two turns to fire without ANY retaliation from the revenant. If the revenant took the 160 points off for mobility, it would be a minimum of 5(!) Turns where the shadowsword could fire without needing to worry about return fire. That has to MEAN something in points. Dropping the range to where the pulsars are, or putting it on a table where the range means nothing, puts the volcano cannon at exactly half what the pulsar is because it is the exact same weapon with half of the shots.
I am telling you the shadowsword is 80 points too expensive on a normal sized table, making its weapon worth half what each of the pulsars are in that scenario. I can not agree that it should stay at that level if it is gaining that kind of advantage.
Except that it isn't an advantage. The game is balanced for a 6x4, and in 7th edition no longer accommodates larger table sizes as a matter of course. So why is it paying to be able to fire across almost 2 tables if it never gets to use that ability, barring scenario games?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: So, dropping the range to give you points back doesn't work because you want the range. Giving you the option of a different point value for playing it on a normal sized table doesn't work because you want it cheaper even in situations where it WILL have the range advantage it does in the fluff. Nothing ( I will repeat my self here because this is what balance should be) NOTHING in the game should get an advantage it doesn't pay for
OMG, are you not reading what people are saying, are you totally failing to comprehend?
some random super-genius wrote:A Warhound should pay more for it's 2-shot S(D) Turbo-laser Destructors, compared to the shorter-ranged 2-shot Eldar Pulsars on a Revenant Titan. However, it shouldn't be 96/60 more, because 96" range isn't functionally that much better than 60" range on a typical 4' x 8' table. And in no way does a single 120" shot from a Volcano Cannon trade with 2x 60" shots from an Eldar Pulsar. Claiming the Volcano Cannon to be correct "because I said so" is also ridiculous, because floor games just don't occur that often, and that's not how GW would have set the price.
Double range is not actually worth double cost. Double range is worth less, the farther it goes. Going from 24" to 48" matters a bunch. Going from 60" to 120" is of far less benefit. Nobody is saying that it should be free. Just that you don't know how to cost it intelligently.
The fact that something like this completely escapes you, both as a criticism and a solution, shows why the 9 months you've spent so far was basically a waste of time in terms of validating your system.
And the sheer amount of arguing with the (several) people who are pointing this out to you is completely stupid. You are getting better feedback in the 9 days that this thread has been alive than you got in the entire 9 months you wasted, and you're basically rejecting it.
You know what? I'm out. I don't need your VDR. It's totally worthless and useless. You are terrible as the project lead and a weak games designer, because you simply cannot accept that the numbers are wrong. Then, you completely refuse to incorporate that feedback, insisting that it needs to be covering 28mm Epic, when Jervis' original VDR had no such statement. commentary and criticism. It's as if you completely fail to understand what feedback is, or how to use it.
So yeah, I'm done here. It's been a waste of my time talking to a brick wall that doesn't listen, and the only thing I've gotten from this entire thing are a few laughs and the warning to not bother with your VDR.
Avoidin the topic of the VDR, there is another reason the Revenant titan is often seen as overpowered regardless of the point cost and range and other arguments- because of the Escalation book itself. Escalation was a terrible book that took a random, highly unbalanced selection of superheavies for the different races, and tried to convince players that they were balanced. IG got their ton of Baneblade variants, since they were plastic kits. Same with Orks and the Stompa. Necrons got the Transcendent C'Tan, which was the most broken unit in the book, but it was a plastic kit. IIRC Chaos got the terrible Lord of Skulls. Marines, Nids, Tau, and Eldar were forced to rely on FW models. Of those 4, 3 ot large, expensive fliers- Thunderhawk, Harradin, Tiershark (and not the good Tigershark either) while Eldar got the relatively cheap Revenant Titan, instead of say the Scorpion grav tank. And Dark Eldar got nothing.
40k doesn't scale to uber sized gaming areas. If you want to make rules that are balanced on a 12 foot by 12 foot gaming area, they can't be the same rules that are also balanced on a 4 foot by 6 foot table.
You have to design rules around a table size (or range of table sizes).
You might be able to play on a different table size but don't expect the game to be balanced.
Since most people play on 4x4, 4x6 and 4x8 tables, that's how the game should be balanced and then you should think about how it should be REBALANCED for a larger table if that's what you want to do.
Yes I know I just said the exact same 3 times just worded differently, but that seemed the most appropriate thing for this thread
I am making the changes you are asking for! How many times can I say that?
I am giving you the balance of points if you drop the extra distance in a separate column as a way to placate you without making a super long range gun too potent in games where that range actually matters.
What more could you possibly want from me? I refuse to simply change how the weapons balance out as a whole because you want me to. I AM willing to give price breaks for weapons if they are being used in smaller tables to show how overcosted they are for that setting.
I am doing exactly what you asked me to do and I am somehow catching hell for it!
Take 80 points off of a shadowsword. That is what you want, that is your answer, that is how the math works, I am going to still be told how stupid my system is and how wasted my time was.
The revenant is balanced against other superheavy level unit that are toting strength D weapons. It is paying three times the amount of points a superheavy would to be a flyer, its guns are only twice as good as a shadowsword when balance for table space, its defense against weapons is only on par with other superheavy walkers of its class because while it does negate hits, its armor value allows strength 6 and 7 to threaten it one the highest armor value it has. How many plasma gun hits does it take to kill a land raider? For the revenant titan it is a little less than fifty. How about heavy rail rifles? About 25 for the revenant, the land raider takes takes 24 to bring it down. These two units spend the same amount of points for protection, the land raider spends 185 points LESS for durability than the revenant. How much more prevalent are plasma guns, high yield missile pods, multilasers, and scatterlasers than strength D in the game? You have the same chance of denying a strength D shot that would have done nothing as you do the dreaded "6" you never know because the roll on the chart never happens it it is stopped.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I am giving you the balance of points if you drop the extra distance in a separate column as a way to placate you without making a super long range gun too potent in games where that range actually matters.
And, again, you keep missing the point of what people are telling you: the Shadowsword with 120" range is too expensive. The only reason to tie a point reduction to a range nerf is if your primary goal is defending your house rules.
What more could you possibly want from me? I refuse to simply change how the weapons balance out as a whole because you want me to. I AM willing to give price breaks for weapons if they are being used in smaller tables to show how overcosted they are for that setting.
And this is the problem: you're so focused on defending the overall legitimacy of your VDR system that your highest priority is following your rules rather than assigning the appropriate point cost to a unit. If the point cost your system assigns the Shadowsword is too high then your system is wrong. Stop trying to argue that it needs a stat nerf just so you don't have to acknowledge any problems in your system.
I am going to still be told how stupid my system is and how wasted my time was.
You're right, you will. Have you already forgotten that I broke your system with a few minutes of trying and produced the horde of psychic peas? The fact that you spent a lot of time on the system doesn't mean that it's a good system.
The revenant is balanced against other superheavy level unit that are toting strength D weapons.
No it isn't.
its guns are only twice as good as a shadowsword when balance for table space
No, its guns are WAY better than twice as good. Doubling the range of a gun does NOT double its value. FFS, how many times do people have to explain this to you?
These two units spend the same amount of points for protection
{citation needed}
The fact that you have assigned a point value to its protection does not mean that it actually pays that much. I could argue that the Revenant pays 1 point for its protection and I'd have just as much evidence as you to support my claim.
How much more prevalent are plasma guns, high yield missile pods, multilasers, and scatterlasers than strength D in the game?
What happened to the idea that we're playing all of our games across entire rooms? None of those weapons matter in your giant floor games. So if you're going to insist that the Shadowsword is always going to use the full value of its 120" range then you can't simultaneously insist that a plasma gun with 24" range will get to shoot at a Revenant.
You have the same chance of denying a strength D shot that would have done nothing as you do the dreaded "6" you never know because the roll on the chart never happens it it is stopped.
What does this have to do with anything? You do realize that the Revenant's 50% damage reduction applies to rolls of 2-5 on the D-weapon table, right?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Vanguard vets pay less because they are super special snowflakes. Don't space marine sargents, eldar storm guardians, and almost every independent character in the game pay the exact same 15 points for a power weapon? How about powerfists/claws on orks, chaos, and imperial army? The weapon is the same, but the base price of the unit is different. Imperial guard Sargent may only be srt6, but the model is only worth 30 points. The space marine veteran Sargent is str8, but he totals out to a 50 point model. He should be better.
Its yet another of GW's many failings, and its going to be a massive spanner on the works for and design rules, but a Guardsman pays his 5 points for the statline because that's what his statline is supposed;y worth. Space Marines pay 14 points for their statline, because that is what their statline is worth. They're not paying 14 points for a possible upgrade. The 15 pts per power weapon makes no sense when the returns for that 15 points varies dramatically. If you took 3 guardsman and a power weapon and fought 1 marine with a power weapon, the marine will likely win, due to being faster, more accurate and more durable. The return is simply greater on the higher statline.
Same reason that saves should scale with base durability - 4++ saves statistically double the durability of something. Giving a guardsman a 4++ for 30 points is worthless, but giving it to a 10 Wound, Toughness 10 GMC with IWND 2+ and FnP 2+, the 4++ just made it practically immortal.
What more could you possibly want from me? I refuse to simply change how the weapons balance out as a whole because you want me to. I AM willing to give price breaks for weapons if they are being used in smaller tables to show how overcosted they are for that setting.
YES! That's exactly what we want you to do! You're looking at the GW pricing and saying "the extra cost is for the range" rather than thinking "they misjudged it effectiveness". You cannot justify many of the things GW has done, because there was no reasoning behind it. The points per weapon is often unrelated to its effectiveness.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think I need to point out that 40k item effectiveness does not scale anywhere near as linearly as you think. They scale with statistical probability.
Perigrin, I am going to say this again, just for you. The volcano cannon on a normal sized table is 80 points too expensive. That would make it exactly half of the value of a pulsar. Now, at point value they are statistically identical except the pulsar fires twice. That is balance.
Also, you don't get to say that floor games don't count and then try to say that what can happen in a normal game doesn't matter. If the shadowsword is in a game where its excessive range matters, then it should pay those points. If it isn't, then it is overpriced for the table. I have given you the exact amount to make it's weapon balanced perfectly for a normal sized game, if you put it at that point total you could almost fit three of them into the game for every revenant. Triple the hullpoints, 3/4 the firepower, harder to hurt with every weapon besides strength D, with almost 4 times the board coverage. How can you say that isn't balanced?
And finally, three guardsmen and a power weapon versus one marine with a power weapon can statistically go either way. The marine won't have the attacks to kill three guardsmen and if they're all in base contact the guard player gets to choose. Seems about right to me...
First of all, where are you getting this "80 points cheaper" line from? While I agree that the Shadowsword is 100 points too costly, or thereabouts, it is that much overpriced even in floorhammer.
Secondly, the price of a weapon upgrade should be relative to the gain it provides - 15 points on a guardsman is *not* the same as 15 points on a marine. Neither of those are the same as 15 points on a SM Captain.
How are you not seeing this?
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Perigrin, I am going to say this again, just for you. The volcano cannon on a normal sized table is 80 points too expensive. That would make it exactly half of the value of a pulsar. Now, at point value they are statistically identical except the pulsar fires twice. That is balance.
The point you keep missing is that, even if we grant your assumption that the pulsar is worth 160 points (which is being incredibly generous) the volcano cannon is too expensive on ANY table. Doubling its range does not make up for having half the shots.
Also, you don't get to say that floor games don't count and then try to say that what can happen in a normal game doesn't matter.
Where did I ever say that what can happen in a normal game doesn't matter?
If the shadowsword is in a game where its excessive range matters, then it should pay those points.
You can't have multiple costs for a unit. Nobody is going to use a system where you have to multiply a unit's point cost by the number of square inches on your playing surface. And if you have to have a single cost for a unit the the obvious way to do it is to base that cost on the situation where the unit sees the vast majority of its use.
I have given you the exact amount to make it's weapon balanced perfectly for a normal sized game,
No you haven't. You've given us a number that you invented based on little more than a desire to have your formulas work the way you want them to.
if you put it at that point total you could almost fit three of them into the game for every revenant. Triple the hullpoints, 3/4 the firepower, harder to hurt with every weapon besides strength D, with almost 4 times the board coverage. How can you say that isn't balanced?
Do you understand concepts like FOC slot efficiency?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Selym wrote: First of all, where are you getting this "80 points cheaper" line from?
The argument seems to be "both weapons are worth 160 points because I said so, but if you remove the Shadowsword's range advantage it now has half the gun and its price should be 80 points".
Alcibiades wrote: If you don't like his rules, nobody is forcing you to screech at him about it like an agry toddler.
This is the more populated of two threads in which Lyth is recieving criticism for his VDR. We're attempting to apply logic to a system that is rejecting it.
Alcibiades wrote: If you don't like his rules, nobody is forcing you to screech at him about it like an agry toddler.
Nobody has screeched at him, but it's hard not to based off the fact he's using the logic of one. Nobody should be willing to defend a system, where Peregrine can run frozen peas against my corn kernels, which somehow gives us MORE points to spend, by simply saying nobody would do that for an advantage.
Some discussion on the other thread, in case anyone's interested:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:I was comparing it to the bs3 version of the melta cannon. In order to miss an infantry sized model with a ten inch blast at bs3 you would NEED to roll a 9 or higher on 2d6 and that is if you don't happen to roll the 1/3 chance to get it exactly where you want it from the scatter die. What reasonable person can look at the two statlines above and say the shorter ranged one that covers about 25% of the area should be the more expensive option?
Against any av above ten the baneblade cannon has a higher percentage chance to pen any vehicle until the melta cannon gets within 18". That means for four feet and six inches the baneblade cannon actually has the same or better chance to explode a vehicle. It can hit entire squadrons of vehicles reliably because they are limited to a 4" spacing of them, meaning that all of the cool new units of tanks that marines and eldar got are actually MORE susceptible to the baneblade cannon than they were originally.
The baneblade isn't mediocre for 505 points, luck shots with strength D are the only issue it really has. And I have said many time how I feel about that particular weapon option.
Selym wrote:Yet more evidence that you've never seen a Baneblade on the TT. The Melta Cannon probably should be cheaper. One of the major problems with IK is how hard they are to kill without D weapons. Maybe you're undervaluing their armour.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:The points allocated to armor and toughness/save scale together and appear to follow a glide path of damage reduction that I am happy with for every vehicle and monstrous creature in the game. I believe you are undervaluing the baneblade by a huge margin.
Compared to where a wraithknight should be (395) and especially if you take my proposition for strD into account, the baneblade will have a much more dramatic effect on the entire game.
Selym wrote:But we're not. If we're playing "houserule 40k" we should be remaking the units from the ground up, but we're not. We're using the rules of 7E.
And come back when you've actually tested the units you're theoryhammering on.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:How many games have you had with your baneblade that didn't involve strength D at all?
How am I going to make this system work at all if all I am going to run into is people wanting g me to make everything as overpowered as the wraithknight and ta'unar? If I priced everything according to those units, then everything made with this system will be so powerful nobody will want to play against it.
There are discrepancies in what games workshop does compared to my system, I need people to help me spot them, but I will not intentionally create a system to perpetuate the unbalance shown by a limited few models.
Selym wrote:I haven't played any games with Strength D in them. We're not trying to make them as OP as the WK, but the WK till has to be considered. If you actually read the arguments and the justifications for them, instead of rejecting them and replacing them with a suggestion that doesn't make any sense, you're not realy going to get anywhere.
The discrepancies between GW and your system total 1:
-It's possible to make negative value units.
And if everything were made to the value of a WK, the game would balance itself out, due to all units being on the same power level.
both units are identical -They can move 12 inches -They both have STR: D
The differences -Unit A has 48 inch range and a 4++ -Unit B has a 120 inch range
The outcome tends to be like this T1 - Unit A moves 12 inches forward and kills Unit B or T1a - Unit B doesn't moves, fires, and has a 50% chance of killing Unit A. T1b - Unit A moves 12 inches forward and kills Unit B
This means Unit A has a 75% chance to win essentially. But according to VDR, they are balanced.
I've actually had a couple of games with the Baneblade with no SD, simply because I don't really play armies that have easy access to it. I had essentially no fear though and knew killing it means they wasted a good chunk of points on it.
I think Slayer is saying that having a Baneblade in his army meant that he did not have to worry about the enemy firepower, without Str D.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and, for clarity: In the other thread, where Lyth is talking about a 505 point Baneblade, he's referring to one without sponsons.
Selym wrote: I think Slayer is saying that having a Baneblade in his army meant that he did not have to worry about the enemy firepower, without Str D.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and, for clarity: In the other thread, where Lyth is talking about a 505 point Baneblade, he's referring to one without sponsons.
I'm saying I don't have a care in the world if the opponent uses a Baneblade because they aren't scary, even without SD.
Polite Trolling is still Trolling, dude.
Why 
ing hilarious.
