Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

At the same time on a normal table it's not worth all that much so it shouldn't be paying much for it, and it's apparently too expensive as it stands.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

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...

Once again, the point is being wildly missed.

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".

If you don't like his rules, nobody is forcing you to screech at him about it like an agry toddler.

Alcibiades wrote:
If you don't like his rules, nobody is forcing you to screech at him about it like an agry toddler.

It's a discussion forum. Discussions happen here.

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
If you don't like his rules, nobody is forcing you to screech at him about it like an agry toddler.

It's a discussion forum. Discussions happen here.

God dammit I've missed your posts Peregrine.

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.

Say we have 2 units on 32mm bases on a 4x6 table.

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.

WHICH IS bs

EDIT: for clarity maybe?

That's ridiculous.

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.

What? I don't understand you Slayer.

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.

What I don't know is why this is still in General Discussion instead of Proposed Rules.

Because the thread dedicated to /this/ discussion is in Proposed Rules, and this thread is labelled as, and starts off as, a general discussion.

Its evolved into quite the beast.

But is probably done. Time to move the discussion back to the other thread.