Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Apparently you don't understand the concept of diminishing returns on investment, I'll explain.

Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Right. So, rather fairly, you pay through the nose to get excessive hullpoints. We already understand this. This has not been our argument.

Our argument is that when presented with a choice of:

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 600 pts

vs

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 30 pts

Which one is fairer? The latter is achieved through taking a 4++ save upgrade. How is that fair?

The one gives guaranteed hullpoints that won't be mitigated at all by a single "6" on strength D or a failed die roll and will have less problems if an explodes result is rolled. Also, that was never your argument. Your argument was that the one that has paid for the extra hullpoints should have to pay MORE because it gives one more protection than the other. When I showed that to not be the case, you changed your argument. What was that thing you said earlier about goalposts?
This has been my argument the whole time. You've been missing the point. How does such a large increase in defence only worth 30 points? Sure, its mitigated by one or two things, but for the most part it is still there. It is still extremely powerful. It is a much larger gain that on a weaker unit. It is worth waaay more than 30 points, even with Str D. What's not to get about that? At this point youre just dismissing the argument out of hand simply because it's harder to implement.

I will tell you exactly why it is fair. Because the player who is fighting it doesn't HAVE to chew through twice as many hullpoints. They just need you to fail saves. Saves that can easily be replicated for free by a 1 story ruin, aegis defense line, or intervening models and a 10 point camo net. When o give math, I am told to look at actual gameplay, when I give gameplay I am told to look at the mathematical averages.
Oh for feths sake. A 4++ is STILL worth more to a tougher unit than a less tough unit.

When are you going to realise that I may actually know what I am doing with this thing and actually listen when I give an explanation. Super heavy vehicles will pay a static cost for invul saves, holofields, voidshields, and ork fields. Normal vehicles will pay a point total for the invul saves based on size category because their points don't diminish on returns the way superheavies do.
The reason I don't realise it is because you're being very, very stupid about this. Why on earth should a greater bonus in defence be the same cost at all times,on anything?

Thank you for pointing that and the need for a minimum point value for vehicles based on size out to me. That was exceptionally helpful.
Sarcasm won't help.

I will also be making each racial group their own chart to start and will divide the weapon/race specific upgrades charts into separate ones for small arms, normal, and apocalypse level sets to allow ease of reference.

Because with the diminishing returns on investment for superheavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures in regards to health you would NEED the price to stay the same otherwise the unit won't be worth what you are paying for it to be on the table.

What is so hard for you to comprehend about the fact that instead of making the units pay more for bonuses as they increase in durability I make them pay higher percentages for that durability to allow for easier math when building vehicles. I did the percentages work in the background to allow people to simply write out a new vehicle.

An aegis defense line is always the same points no matter what you put behind it.

The shield of faith is always worth the same amount of points no matter what the av is on the unit

A skyshield landing pad is the same amount of points no matter what you put on it.

A voidshields for is the same amount of points whether it is on an imperial bunker or a warlord titan.

A 4+ cover save is the same level of protection against 90% of all ranged shots in the game and costs you nothing to put on the table.

Why should I charge more for those thing in my vdr when nothing else seems to? These units are for warhammer 40k, they need to be usable in that system otherwise there is no point to making the update.

Finally, I wasn't being sarcastic. I told you what you have added to my work that I found valuable, and the rest has been you ignoring me when I tell you the purpose behind what I have done. Increasing av from one point to another has always resulted in one strength level being negated entirely and giving a reduction of capability to every other strength value besides strD. The holofields represent that benefit in game while allowing the eldar to still pay similar poi t totals to other superheavies in the game and maintain their low av typecast.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What is so hard for you to comprehend about the fact that instead of making the units pay more for bonuses as they increase in durability I make them pay higher percentages for that durability to allow for easier math when building vehicles.

I'm pretty sure no one is failing to comprehend that. They are arguing that it's not a valid way of doing it.

Arguing "Well the rest of 40k has mostly fixed values as well" isn't a great argument because...

1. Most people think it's a design flaw that equipment costs are homogenised in the rest of 40k anyway. An IG Vet with a lasgun costs +1 point compared to a Guardsman with a lasgun which is a reasonable premium of +20%. An IG Vet with a plasma or melta gun is still only +1 point compared to a Guardsman with a plasma or melta gun, a premium of only 5% or 7% respectively. This is a flaw, not an intelligent design feature and it's why some units end up with options that are blatantly better (getting to the point where some units have options that are almost "must haves" and other options that are "only take this if you're stupid or a super fluffy bunny").

2. The problem is exacerbated when you use fixed values to build an entire unit. It's bad enough that regular 40k has fixed values for weapons, when an entire unit is built on that premise then you end up with wild swings in balance that result in people questioning the value of rules that are so inherently unbalanced, you reach the point where the better way to determine a unit's value is just play a game and take a wild guess at what it's worth based on its performance.

It cannot be an invalid way of doing g it because it will give the exact same point totals as the way you are wanting to do it!!!

Pay attention, I will go over this again.

I am making them pay more for their hullpoints on a gradient scale. That means that while each hullpoint is worth less the more you add, their point value remains the same. Then you add a fixed value rule to them. While it IS stronger on that unit, all it is really doing is buying back the points wasted on the extra hullpoints. What you are wanting me to do (in order for it to work out mathematically) is make the hullpoints all worth the same without any waste in points and add a percentage scale to all of the saves to accommodate their importance to the vehicle at large. My system already does what you ask, it just does it a different way. You don't like the way I reach the same conclusion (points wise) in regards to mathematical balance and frankly I don't care. The math will work out either way, my way doesn't require the person using it to have a calculator, your version does. I will go with the user friendly version any day because the point of this is to have people be able to use it.

My math does exactly what you want it to, you just (for some reason) are unable to see it. And since you don't understand it, you are trying to make me do the math differently. I am not going to do that. For non superheavies/gargantuans, yes a scale total will be necessary. I see that, did so when you brought it up. But for the superheavies themselves it isn't needed because I built the counterbalance into them from the start to allow that to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here, I'll show you exactly what I mean.

First six hullpoints 100 points.

Next six hullpoints are really just there to be a buffer against strength D and add no other special rules. They are actually only worth about 15 points each.

Six hullpoints after that are around 10 points a piece because all it is doing is adding hullpoints that most games wouldn't see torn through any way.

Every six after that drop in price until you hit about 5 points a piece.

So, when your six hullpoint pays 30 points for the 4++, it is paying 30 points.

When your 9 hullpoint superheavy buys a 30 point 4++, it is really paying 85 points

When that 18 hullpoint superheavy is buying a 4++ it is paying ~280 points for the privilege. That is where you aren't comprehending what I am saying to you.

wat.


We're discussing the rules that you have created and written down - we can't discuss the rules you have imagined and not told anyone.

The one gives guaranteed hullpoints that won't be mitigated at all by a single "6" on strength D or a failed die roll and will have less problems if an explodes result is rolled. Also, that was never your argument. Your argument was that the one that has paid for the extra hullpoints should have to pay MORE because it gives one more protection than the other. When I showed that to not be the case, you changed your argument. What was that thing you said earlier about goalposts?

Sure, it the hull points should be worth SLIGHTLY more. Probably. It gives a buffer (and thus smoother damage curve). It stacks with cover (if you can get it) (but only from ranged). But in most cases it is functionally equivalent, and so should cost nearly the same. Not 20x more.

I was trying to explain why things were priced the way they were, nobody seemed to understand the concept I told them. I didn't want to, but I felt I had to get into the actual technical side of the mathematics. The thing with the 4++ is it doesn't give you actual hullpoints, it gives you POSSIBLE hullpoints. If you don't want your superheavy walker killed by a deep striking meltavet squad, then you may want to pay for the extra hullpoints as opposed to the 4++. Or meet in the middle where you get slightly less hullpoints but still get the invul save.

If all you want is a smaller superheavy vehicle, then the 4++ is the better answer. But those who want a bigger one may be willing to spend more hullpoints to warrant the bigger model with more guns. The vdr was and is just a way to put rules on a model you had an idea for to be able to put it on the table.

I will be updating the current ruleset once I get my hands on the new tau codex, no point in doing it twice in one month.

And you will also notice that the only flat rate increases in the vdr are defensive stats. Weapon costs rise based on ballistic skill, so the veterans to guardsmen comparison doesn't actually work with weapons. Now, what does camo cloaks give one above the other? That is where points being equal between units matters.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The vdr was and is just a way to put rules on a model you had an idea for to be able to put it on the table.

Then why do you keep attempting to use your calculations to justify GW's point costs? Remember that "the Revenant is balanced because my system says so" thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, when your six hullpoint pays 30 points for the 4++, it is paying 30 points.

When your 9 hullpoint superheavy buys a 30 point 4++, it is really paying 85 points

Except it isn't, because you set the 4++ at a fixed price. You can't say "the price of the 4++ is built into the price per HP" because it's possible to make a vehicle without a 4++. If you've incorporated some of the value of the 4++ into the HP costs then any vehicle without a 4++ is going to be too expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Nope, wrong again. In my heavy stubber example all three vehicles have the same 6 HP. So you can't appeal to per-HP point differences to explain the differences in weapon costs vs. weapon values.

The heavy stubber is overcosted as an upgrade because it is there to give you a chance to keep your bigger guns.

And you missed the point entirely. The issue is not the value of the heavy stubber for a single vehicle, it's the DIFFERENCE IN VALUE between multiple vehicles. All of them get the same chance to keep their bigger guns by losing the heavy stubber instead (zero chance since they're all superheavies and ignore "weapon destroyed" results), so you can just ignore this factor. The only way this would be at all a credible argument is if the Malcador paid the same price as the knight for a heavy stubber because the knight's "charge the right target" value is balanced against the Malcador's "save your main gun" value. But since the Malcador gets no additional "save your main gun" value compared to the knight it can't be used to justify the point cost.

If I change every point value based on synergy with other weapons systems the world would run out of paper.

What's your point? The fact that designing a vehicle creation system is difficult does not mean that your system is correct. If you want to say "my point systems do not reflect the real value of a vehicle, they're just a crude approximation at best" then that's fine, but if you're going to do that then you need to stop insisting that your numbers must be correct.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be an invalid way of doing g it because it will give the exact same point totals as the way you are wanting to do it!!!
Lol wat? How could you possibly know what the refined value is? We're starting with GW items, and then refining them, since the GW values are bullgak at best.

My math does exactly what you want it to, you just (for some reason) are unable to see it. And since you don't understand it, you are trying to make me do the math differently. I am not going to do that. For non superheavies/gargantuans, yes a scale total will be necessary. I see that, did so when you brought it up. But for the superheavies themselves it isn't needed because I built the counterbalance into them from the start to allow that to be the case.
Again, lol wat? Your maths demonstrably does not do what we want it to do. We understand it perfectly. At this point your arguments are motivated by the idea that your maths are/have always been perfectly correct, and you're refusing the evidence against it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That is where you aren't comprehending what I am saying to you.

No, we are.... we just think you're wrong.

If you've built in some of the cost of the 4++ in to hull points themselves.... your hull point values are wrong. Either the hull point values are wrong or the 4++ values are wrong because neither can be fixed. You must account for synergy otherwise you create a situation where one option is always better than another (in this case, a 4++ is better than trying to double your hull points because it almost doubles your endurance for far less than the cost of doubling your hull points because part of the cost of a 4++ is buried in the cost of a hull point even if you choose not to take the 4++).

That's just in the case of saves, in the case of weaponry the same thing happens (like Peregrine is pointing out with the Heavy Stubber).

Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle. It gives you three shots to throw at some other unit nearby to try and kill them. Just because the heavy stubber allows the knight to have not wasted all of its points on the giant chainsword it carries around. Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower. You guys are being rediculous. Everything in the game varies in capability based on synergy, if you don't like how something synergizes in the game, use the rules here and make something that does. Believe it or not, it works.

What am I supposed to do for you? Every option you put on a superheavy vehicle has its points balanced out by the equipment attached to it, including weapons. A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it. But, when you start adding higher armor values and weapons it starts to fall in line with other superheavy vehicles in the game and becomes more efficient. That is how balance is achieved. Does a baneblade lose efficiency simply because of the points it spent on the three extra hullpoints? Yes. If it were 6hullpoints and 130 points cheaper (gun is overpriced) then you would have a tank at 405 points that would allow you to control the table with heavy hitting firepower and more than adequate defense.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing, and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.

Salym: my math will give you a vehicle that is in line with any other vehicle games workshop makes. I am making some of the changes you asked, arguing with me until I put out the next update will succeed at nothing other than you being blocked. I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING! If you want these things, do it yourself.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?
Personally, I want to see this only on the really big stackable things. You've been attempting to incorporate it already by having the cost of a 4++ placed partially in the HP costs. Separate the two, and that's several arguments solved immediately.

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle. It gives you three shots to throw at some other unit nearby to try and kill them. Just because the heavy stubber allows the knight to have not wasted all of its points on the giant chainsword it carries around. Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower. You guys are being rediculous. Everything in the game varies in capability based on synergy, if you don't like how something synergizes in the game, use the rules here and make something that does. Believe it or not, it works.
I kinda agree here - its impossible to account for everything, and aside from targeting capabilities a subber is a stubber is a stubber. Yes, it allows an IK to fire the main gun at something it isn't charging. But the cost of the gun assumes it is that effective anyway. Its the same reason we think LR's are overpriced (aside from a crippling weakness of GW making terribad vehicle rules).

What am I supposed to do for you? Every option you put on a superheavy vehicle has its points balanced out by the equipment attached to it, including weapons. A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it. But, when you start adding higher armor values and weapons it starts to fall in line with other superheavy vehicles in the game and becomes more efficient. That is how balance is achieved. Does a baneblade lose efficiency simply because of the points it spent on the three extra hullpoints? Yes. If it were 6hullpoints and 130 points cheaper (gun is overpriced) then you would have a tank at 405 points that would allow you to control the table with heavy hitting firepower and more than adequate defense.
Personally, I think this would be more easily resolved by starting with a base price for an Av10 3HP tank, and then adding/subtracting points for the various classifications. Trying to get everything to work on HP alone is fascinating to watch, but seems to result in far more aggro than it's worth.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing, and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.
GW demonstrably either does not know what they're doing, or are intentionally making imbalances to increase sales. The game is not balanced as/is, so trying to recreate it is a lost cause. Also Peregrine is like this to everyone. if he gets annoyed by something, he'll stop at nothing to argue it to the ground.

Selym: my math will give you a vehicle that is in line with any other vehicle games workshop makes. I am making some of the changes you asked, arguing with me until I put out the next update will succeed at nothing other than you being blocked. I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING! If you want these things, do it yourself.
Blocked? You mean Banhammer? Nah. Being able to recreate the GW prices is a flaw in the system, not a positive attribute. GW makes up random bullgak numbers and calls them a system. I'm continuing to argue about the 4++ because you're presenting an argument against it. Which indicates to me that the change would not appear in an update.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.
Aww damnit, you've missed the point again!

I trust the math here. TBH I would mostly be interested in seeing an analysis of which models are statistical outliers here. Are Leman Russes way more efficient than we thought? Can the Maleceptor finally do SOMETHING??!

 luke1705 wrote:
I trust the math here. TBH I would mostly be interested in seeing an analysis of which models are statistical outliers here. Are Leman Russes way more efficient than we thought? Can the Maleceptor finally do SOMETHING??!

Trusting it does not mean its correct, nor does it mean it has come to the right conclusions. Also, you cannot make proper russes in this ruleset.

With the leman Russ, I see the hunter killer missile as a codex specific upgrades as opposed to a weapon. Same with the heavy stubber really. Heavy vehicles will be given the option for more guns than normal vehicles, which will be a good and fluffy addition to the ruleset.

The only thing I believe my system to be doing right and within games workshop's own system is the survivability metrics. You will see the outliers being shown in the weapons sections of the document.

Some leman Russ are very cost effective. The exterminator autocannon for example seems to be priced at less than a normal autocannon. Maleceptor should actually only max out at about 145 points. The vdr balances all monstrous creatures against the better ones (riptide's, wraithlord, dreadknights) so tyranid will see a significant improvement.

My system shows where points are, and what they should be based on comparison to other weapons of similar capabilities.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With the leman Russ, I see the hunter killer missile as a codex specific upgrades as opposed to a weapon. Same with the heavy stubber really. Heavy vehicles will be given the option for more guns than normal vehicles, which will be a good and fluffy addition to the ruleset.
Your ruleset needs a note stating that codex upgrades can be taken in addition. Also, LRBT proper has four guns: Battlecannon, Lascannon, 2x Heavy Bolter. The VDR restricts it to 3.

The only thing I believe my system to be doing right and within games workshop's own system is the survivability metrics. You will see the outliers being shown in the weapons sections of the document.
I feel I may be arguing the case on this for a very, very long time. However, I like arguing.

Some leman Russ are very cost effective. The exterminator autocannon for example seems to be priced at less than a normal autocannon. Maleceptor should actually only max out at about 145 points. The vdr balances all monstrous creatures against the better ones (riptide's, wraithlord, dreadknights) so tyranid will see a significant improvement.
I would say this is because armour is overvalued most of the time, making the LRBT main guns look waay cheaper than they are. TT-wise, the LR Exterminator is effective, but not overly efficient.

My system shows where points are, and what they should be based on comparison to other weapons of similar capabilities.

You are forgetting the "tank" property that allows for one additional gun. Also, in the vehicle upgrades section you will notice a space in the chart that allows for codex specific upgrades at the price listed

I made survivability equal for points for vehicles and monstrous creatures based on the effectiveness of weapons strength 6-10.

It ensures one isn't significantly stronger than the other and monstrous creatures pay more per health point due to the inability to be exploded and their inherent smash special rule.

I also enjoy a good argument, we can but heads all day long. Just remain civil and I'm all good

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

I'm not saying you have to individually consider every possible synergy, when it comes to individual weapon synergies, probably not... but yes, you have to consider obvious ones like hull points and invulnerable saves. There's no other way to do it except include a couple of tables, one table which indicates how much each hull point costs and a separate table which indicates how much the invulnerable save costs given how many hull points.

It's still not going to be ideal, but it's going to be a hell of a lot closer.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

You're still missing the point. Adding a 4++ invul save should cost a bit less than it costs to double the hull points. So, for example (and I'm just making these numbers up).

If a vehicle has 3HP and to add an additional 3HP costs 100pts, a 4++ should be around 90pts.

If a vehicle has 4HP and to add an additional 4HP costs 130pts, a 4++ should cost around 120pts

If a vehicle has 10HP and to add an additional 10HP costs 300pts, a 4++ should probably cost around 270-290pts.

Now the actual values may be off as I haven't considered what 1HP should actually be worth, but the point I'm trying to make IS THEY SHOULD SCALE TOGETHER so that a vehicle with X HP and a 4++ costs a similar amount of points as a vehicle with 2X HP and no save.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

You're still missing the point. Adding a 4++ invul save should cost a bit less than it costs to double the hull points. So, for example (and I'm just making these numbers up).

If a vehicle has 3HP and to add an additional 3HP costs 100pts, a 4++ should be around 90pts.

If a vehicle has 4HP and to add an additional 4HP costs 130pts, a 4++ should cost around 120pts

If a vehicle has 10HP and to add an additional 10HP costs 300pts, a 4++ should probably cost around 270-290pts.

Now the actual values may be off as I haven't considered what 1HP should actually be worth, but the point I'm trying to make IS THEY SHOULD SCALE TOGETHER so that a vehicle with X HP and a 4++ costs a similar amount of points as a vehicle with 2X HP and no save.

This.

I have understood what you guys are saying, but I am looking at it this way. You can't have a string of bad luck and start the game with less hullpoints. If your vehicle has camo netting and a ruin nearby you have wasted all of those extra points on the invul save. Because gameplay will occasionally offer better circumstances than what you have paid for. The extra hullpoints are a guaranteed return on investment. The invul save is simply hoping the dice roll true.

Take terminators for example. They pay for a 5++, but most terrain gives that bonus or better for free due to cover saves. Making terminators look like hot garbage because of wasted points. The heirophant biotitan has a 6++, it actually had to pay for that. How often is that even going to matter in a game when the creature that has it can get cover easily and is toughness 9 with a 2+ save? What you guys are proposing is that it should pay MORE than what a sisters of battle rhino does even though it means so much LESS than it does for the rhino.

The toughness/saves matrix and the av matrix combined with the hullpoints and wounds charts make you want to spend extra points on the protection of the expensive commodity of wounds/hullpoints. If you don't, your creation will crumple like a wet tissue. By inducing the expenditure on higher defense by way of the pricing system for av and toughness I am ensuring that people will want to make their unit so durable that the addition of things like invul saves will be seen as something trivial, or at the very least unnecessary.

Take the c'tan for example, they actually pay points for a 4+ armor save. Why? It serves absolutely no purpose in the game when the only weapons that can ignore an invul save also ignore armor, and the waste is easily recognizable when you put it on the tabletop. The same will happen with invuls and saves in the vdr. People will buy a 5++ save more often than a 4++ because most of the time they know ruins will be around and if something ignores cover a 5++ should be enough to sabmve them. They are going g to either buy a better armor save than they have an invul save or they won't buy an armor save. Which will mean they save means less to their creation or they are hoping to bank on the invul carrying the unit. Not to mention that the higher the save on a monstrous creature, the less likely there would be weapons able to penetrate it anyway. So if they bought a 3++, but everything hitting them is only ap4 or less they would have been better off just laying the points for the armor save.

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Actually Perigrine the pintle Heavy Stubber only costs 5 points now, it was erreta'd

They still do those?

I know, I thought I was dreaming when I saw it but apparently they do do them.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

Yep, that's how balance works. If your system doesn't account for these factors then your system is broken.

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle.

Lol? Being able to shoot your main gun at whatever you want without limiting your charge options is not "nothing". It's a significance in difference between the knight and the Malcador, even if you decide to label it "not wasting your chainsword" instead of "charging a different target".

Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower.

Oh FFS. Did you even bother to read the argument I was actually making? Adding a heavy stubber to the khornemower makes it a better unit. And, like the knight, that heavy stubber is worth more than it would be on a Malcador. It does not make it a good unit because it is currently overpriced by significantly more than the value of being able to charge whatever it wants.

A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it.

Then you admit that your system is broken. If your point values do not appropriately represent the value of an AV 10 superheavy tank with 9 HP and no weapons then your point values are wrong.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing

It did no such thing. All you've done is create a system where you made sure that your points added up to the official costs for some units, and then used the fact that your points are the same to "prove" that GW's points are right. That's blatant circular reasoning.

Also, as I've clearly demonstrated, GW does not use a system like this to determine their point costs.

and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.

I see. So you'd rather whine and call me a "petulant child" than address the substance of my arguments? I've done way more than tell you that your points suck, I've explained in detail WHY they are wrong and why your entire approach to balance is fundamentally flawed. The fact that you don't want to accept those problems doesn't mean that you haven't been given the evidence.

I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING!

Then your system will continue to be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The invul save is simply hoping the dice roll true.

Do you understand how a bell curve works? A 4++ can give you fewer effective HP than double HP if your dice are bad, but it can also give you more effective HP if your dice are good. The two balance out, you can't ignore the good results and use the bad ones to justify a cheaper point cost.

People will buy a 5++ save more often than a 4++ because most of the time they know ruins will be around and if something ignores cover a 5++ should be enough to sabmve them.

...

I don't think you understand how math works.

Do you realise how absurd it is to ask ANYONE to give a separate but equally valid point total for EVERY gun and weapon in the game based on how well they work with EVERY OTHER gun and weapon in the game? What world do you live in where that is a valid request? My points work for an av 10/10/10, 9 hullpoint superheavy, it is simply not going to do much so people will want to add things to it. Not everyone is looking for a -1 point tank, thank you for showing me they exist but don't think for a moment you have contributed anything else of substance to this discussion.

Also, I did not ensure all of my points were balanced against games workshop. What I did was look for units people were generally in agreement on their balance and used those as my baseline. Then I BALANCED every weapon in the system against them. Have you actually looked through the vdr, or are you so dead set on proving the game of 40k is useless that you can't be bothered to see what is actually written down. I added a scaling curve to hullpoints as an incentive to get people to purchase special options and weapons to make cool vehicles.

Your entire argument is as follows

Games workshop can't ever be right.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that sometimes games workshop can be right.
The vdr that Lyth made has to be wrong for my original assertion to be right.
I cannot be wrong.
The vdr made by Lyth has to be wrong.

If you believe what I said about my math will not change to please you (and it won't) and you believe it will never be right (which you will) then you have nothing further to add to the discussion here. Feel free to continue to comment, but I will not be browbeaten until you fall back in love with games workshop.

Don't like my rules, make your own.

I've been lurking this thread, because it's been hilarious watching Lyth argue in circles, pulling nonsense out of thin air. It's also amazing seeing Perigrine look like the most reasonable man in the room. Pure gold.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What I did was look for units people were generally in agreement on their balance and used those as my baseline.

By this, I'm assuming we're back to the clearly false claims about the Baneblade, Shadowsword and Revenant Titan *ALL* being balanced for their points, correct?

Where exactly was this chorus of people who claimed that each of those units were appropriate balancing points? It can't have been on Dakka or the tournament scene, because the conventional wisdom says that the Baneblade and Shadowsword are both clearly overpriced, while the Revenant is generally deemed somewhat underpriced*.

Also, the bit about overpaying for 9, 12 hull points? Pure nonsense, because there was no minimum HP in order to purchase the void shield or stealth.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Don't like my rules, make your own.

Here we have the most honest and true line in I've read, in which Lyth reveals that the VDR isn't really about creating something that works, it's about ego stroking.

It's OK, you can take your ball and run home to mommy, away from those mean, mean bullies. Mommy still loves you, yes, she does. You're still the smartest, bestest kid, ever!
____

*: ETA, as an primary Eldar player, I'm of a mind that the Revenant might not be especially underpriced, at least, not in the context of other Eldar units like the Wraithknight...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Do you realise how absurd it is to ask ANYONE to give a separate but equally valid point total for EVERY gun and weapon in the game based on how well they work with EVERY OTHER gun and weapon in the game?

Yep. That's one of the reasons why we don't insist on doing VDR-style rules, because getting accurate results requires much more effort and complexity than just guessing at an appropriate price and putting it through iterative playtesting. It's not my fault that you're trying to use a bad method.

My points work for an av 10/10/10, 9 hullpoint superheavy, it is simply not going to do much so people will want to add things to it.

You admitted that the point values are wrong.

Also, "people will add more stuff" isn't a valid response, for two reasons:

1) If your numbers are wrong then the process you used to create those numbers must be wrong. If an AV 10/10/10 superheavy with 9 HP and no weapons is so expensive under your system that nobody will want to build one then you have assigned it the wrong point cost. It doesn't matter if nobody actually makes that unit, there's a mistake somewhere in your process because an accurate process doesn't produce such obviously bad results.

2) What if I made a model of a big cargo hauler and I want to give it rules for a convoy escort scenario? Why should I have to add a bunch of guns to it just to make the point values work? The only reason to even consider using a VDR-style system is if you have cool models that you want to give rules to, and that means covering a whole bunch of "fluffy" stuff that has nothing to do with "make the most effective vehicle for my army so I can win games".

Not everyone is looking for a -1 point tank, thank you for showing me they exist but don't think for a moment you have contributed anything else of substance to this discussion.

I see. So you're just going to label all of my other examples of your system producing bad results "nothing constructive" so you don't have to admit that your system is wrong?

And of course nobody is going to build a -1 point tank in a real game, because their opponent is going to say "I don't care if some guy's house rules say you can, I'm not playing against that". But that's not the point. The point is that if your system is capable of outputting a -1 point vehicle then your system is wrong. It's the equivalent of running a computer program and getting "error: divide by zero". It doesn't matter what combinations of inputs got you to that point, there is a bug somewhere in the code.

I added a scaling curve to hullpoints as an incentive to get people to purchase special options and weapons to make cool vehicles.

Then your system is wrong because it gives the wrong point cost to vehicles that don't take "enough" special options and weapons to be "cool" by your standard.

Your entire argument is as follows

Games workshop can't ever be right.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that sometimes games workshop can be right.
The vdr that Lyth made has to be wrong for my original assertion to be right.
I cannot be wrong.
The vdr made by Lyth has to be wrong.

No, that is not my argument at all. Please don't waste time posting absurd straw man arguments. My actual argument is this:

The VDR that you made produces incorrect results.
The VDR that you made uses fixed prices for things that have variable value, which guarantees that at least some of the units you design with your VDR will have incorrect point costs.
Therefore your VDR is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.

And then there's a separate argument about how you try to apply your rules to GW's rules:
GW does not use a VDR-style system to determine their point costs.
Therefore any claim by you to have reverse-engineered GW's points and found them to be appropriate can not be correct.

If you believe what I said about my math will not change to please you (and it won't) and you believe it will never be right (which you will) then you have nothing further to add to the discussion here. Feel free to continue to comment, but I will not be browbeaten until you fall back in love with games workshop.

So you'd rather make absurd arguments about "GW haters" than admit that your system is wrong and improve it? It's really sad that you have to resort to this.

Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

The vdr by lyth shows this may be possible. Lyth recognises that GW is capable of being wrong, and adjusts prices accordingly.

I did not go into the process with the revenant in mind. The shadowsword was my baseline for large blast strength D. When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This had nothing to do with my ego, you aren't trying to make my system work or be more accurate, you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work. At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, wraithknight doesn't pay the points to be gargantuan. It is 100 points undercosted.

The bane blade is 30 points too expensive, the shadowsword is 80 but only if playing on a normal sized table.

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This never happens in real games. Please stop bringing up the ridiculous straw man of room-sized games played with no terrain as justification for crippling a unit on a normal table.

This had nothing to do with my ego

No, it's entirely about your ego. You're refusing to acknowledge legitimate problems because it would require admitting that your VDR system is broken. If it isn't about your ego then tell me this: are you willing to admit, if you are shown evidence that it is true, that your system is not only broken, but broken in fundamental ways that guarantee that it will never work?

you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work.

An effort which is significantly aided by the fact that your system doesn't work.

At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".

IOW, "my system is right and any criticism of it is not constructive".

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

No it didn't. GW did not assign its point cost that way. The fact that you've declared that it pays a certain amount for each component doesn't make it true.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

The vdr by lyth shows this may be possible. Lyth recognises that GW is capable of being wrong, and adjusts prices accordingly.

I did not go into the process with the revenant in mind. The shadowsword was my baseline for large blast strength D. When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This had nothing to do with my ego, you aren't trying to make my system work or be more accurate, you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work. At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".

Also, wraithknight doesn't pay the points to be gargantuan. It is 100 points undercosted.

The bane blade is 30 points too expensive, the shadowsword is 80 but only if playing on a normal sized table.

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

Man alive, this is the thread that keeps on giving...

vdr by lyth only proves that a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut, and that an infinite number of monkeys given an infininite amount of time can eventually write a sonnet. However, getting lucky on a single point out of pure, blind luck does not validate a ruleset that is demonstrably flawed in pretty much every conceivable way. What lyth needs to recognize is that lyth is frequently wrong and has no fething clue what lyth is doing, because lyth is largely incompetent both as a designer and as a project manager, and that lyth deserves the sort of criticism that lyth is receiving because of the laughably defensive and personal way that takes that criticism. lyth should recognize that people are criticising lyth's vdr as sport, because of the sheer petulance and defensiveness that lyth displays when even slightly provoked. If lyth cannot recognize that lyth is the joke, more's the pity.

when lyth states that lyth did not go in with the revenant, it is at odds with lyth's grandiose statements that "Starting with the revenant titan. While the thing is very synergistic in and of itself, it isn't actually undercosted!". lyth also completely overvalues range, imagining that lyth's reference Shadowsword was designed and costed for floor battles, yet completely missing things like DSing meltavets / combimeltatermies / and similar units that insta-nuke a Shadowsword.

lyth claiming the Shadowsword gets 5 turns? SS range is 120", Pulsar is 60", moves 36". At best, the Shadowsword gets 1 shot off, with a 1/2 hit that 1/2 gets past holofield and 1/6 hits for 6+d6 doing 3+ HP 2/3 of the time - net odds: 2% chance for the SS to one-shot the Revenant. After that, the Revenant drops 4 large blasts on the Shadowsword for 3 hits (being generous to the Shadowsword), with a 1/3 chance of getting a "6" insta-kills the SS; however the average damage for those 3 hits still does 8.7 hull points, so all it takes is one more glance to delete the Shadowsword; if the Revenant gets all 4 hits, bye-bye Shadowsword. And that's on the floor.

lyth claiming that this isn't ego is the biggest lie that lyth has posted. both of lyth's threads clearly are masturbatory exercises to lyths' ego. and lyth now expecting people to help lyth "make it work?" trolololol. lyth's system is fundamentally broken, from the way that it costs micro-units, to the way that it assigns points to weapon options, to the way that it costs wargear, to the way that it modifies weapons. lyth should understand that the system is not fixable, because it cannot capture the way that 40k units actually work on the battlefield, and all of the complexity simply creates more loopholes and contradictions for others to exploit. lyth simply does not comprehend why Jervis never bothered updating GW's VDR - because they cannot ever be "fair".

lyth doubles down that the shadowsword being fairly costed! except when it's played the way that everybody else plays 40k.

and lyth further commits on the revenant being fairly costed as well, still adamant that the collective is wrong and lyth is right!


Guys, gotta say, it feels good to be back in, simply for the entertainment value.

Show me. Show me a way in which my vdr cannot build a vehicle usable in warhammer 40k. Besides the lack of a lowest point total allowed, what is so intrinsically wrong that it doesn't let the user make a unit that would be viable on the table and couldn't possibly be fixed.

Show me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the revenant pays 160 EXTRA POINTS ABOVE what its weapons cost to be able to close that distance and is DOUBLE what the shadowsword costs. So yes, one on one the revenant damn well better be able to kill a shadowsword.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Show me. Show me a way in which my vdr cannot build a vehicle usable in warhammer 40k.

Nice job moving the goalposts. A vehicle with 1 HP, AV 1/1/1, and no weapons or special abilities of any kind is playable in 40k, even if it costs 500 points. It won't break any rules and the game will function just fine. Obviously it's a terrible unit and taking it will significantly hurt your chances of winning, but you can still use it if you really want.

The actual criticism of your system is that it produces results that are clearly inaccurate, and its approach is broken in fundamental ways that guarantee it will do so.

Besides the lack of a lowest point total allowed, what is so intrinsically wrong that it doesn't let the user make a unit that would be viable on the table and couldn't possibly be fixed.

Show me.

I've already showed you, several times, what is wrong with your system: fixed prices for things with variable values.

Also, nice job moving the goalposts again. Why should we set the threshold for failure at "can't possibly be fixed"? Any system, no matter how bad, succeeds under that standard since you can always just fix the costs it produces.

Also, the revenant pays 160 EXTRA POINTS ABOVE what its weapons cost to be able to close that distance and is DOUBLE what the shadowsword costs.

{citation needed}

The only source for the price of the Revenant's weapons is your arbitrary choice. Please stop repeating this myth that it pays a specific price for its movement speed.

I say it pays that price because I am certain of the other point totals paid for what it brings to the table.

I have said already that the rules I have set allow for the implementation of static numbers for upgrades based on a system of diminishing returns on your investment for superheavy hullpoints. I am sure people can make inefficient vehicles with this system. I am sure they can go the other way also and make truely epic monsters and tanks with this system. What they won't do is break the game.

I wasn't moving goalposts. Perigrin said if I was shown how my system is so broken it can't ever work would I accept it. I am asking him to show me that situation.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I say it pays that price because I am certain of the other point totals paid for what it brings to the table.

But we've already established that you're wrong about at least some of those point totals (for example, its guns are not worth the same as the Shadowsword's gun). You can be as certain as you want, but you're still wrong.

I have said already that the rules I have set allow for the implementation of static numbers for upgrades based on a system of diminishing returns on your investment for superheavy hullpoints.

You said it, but you were wrong when you said it then and you're wrong when you say it now. This approach does not work because building the upgrade cost into the HP costs requires you to take the exact amount of upgrades you were expecting. If you don't use enough upgrades then you've overpaid for your vehicle because its HP cost assumes that you were going to buy more stuff. If you use too many upgrades then you've underpaid for your vehicle because the "hidden" price in the HP cost didn't cover that many upgrades.

And besides the fact that it doesn't work I have no idea why you'd even want to try it in the first place. Why not just price the HP according to their value and then price the upgrades based on their added value (fixed price for static value, percentage-based price for variable value)? The only reason not to do it that way seems to be that it would require you to admit that your system was wrong, and that your supposed reverse-engineered point costs for GW units were not accurate.

I am sure people can make inefficient vehicles with this system. I am sure they can go the other way also and make truely epic monsters and tanks with this system.

Then your system is wrong.

I wasn't moving goalposts. Perigrin said if I was shown how my system is so broken it can't ever work would I accept it. I am asking him to show me that situation.

And "broken" means "produces inaccurate results", not "produces a vehicle that is literally impossible to use in 40k". You're moving the goalposts because you tried to insist that I produce a vehicle that is unplayable, not merely inaccurately priced.

I can tell you a problem with your system straight away: You can't legally make Leman Russes. And if you make a Vanquisher with this system it costs 25 more points than the Codex variant with just an extra hhull point for it's trouble.

Ok, I've done what you said and adjusted the point totals to reflect what you want. Baneblade is overpriced by 40 points and suffers from a lack of synergy based on the range discrepancy of its primary weapons. Revenant is 30 points too cheap. With a system of paying 50% or 100 points plus 10 for each additional hullpoint. I am going to stick with the latter because otherwise the phantom titan would be about 100 points too cheap.

Look under the "tank" descriptor for type. That give you your extra weapon without the extra hullpoint. Remember imperials get it for free.

Sorry I was being pig headed about the switch. You guys came off as abrasive and it out me on the defensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, in the last chart of the system you will see a section for codex specific upgrades. That lets you add the heavy stubber and hunter killer missile without breaking the basic design rules.

With the percentage based invul saves the heirophant actually ends up 40 points too expensive as opposed to 90. (The extra points lost remains the overpriced biocannons tyranid gmc's have to lug around)

Ok. If you're accepting corrections now then I'll give you a better starting point. It's still going to have problems with variable values not being represented appropriately, but it should at least remove the most obvious issues. It's a new process:

Offense:

1) Decide on a vehicle role (long-range support, etc). This will adjust the point costs of various things. There is a generic "combat" role with no point adjustments. It does depend on the creator being honest about their role choice, but it should be obvious that the role is appropriate. If you can't convince your fellow players that your role choice matches the design then you take the generic role.

2) Choose weapons. Each weapon has a price depending on the vehicle role. For example, a melta gun costs less on a long-range vehicle than on a short-range vehicle since you won't get to use it as often.

3) Multiply each weapon's cost by any weapon-specific special rules it has (ordnance, likely to be snap-shooting because of other ordnance, can charge additional targets, etc).

4) Multiply each weapon's cost by a BS factor. Blast weapons have a lower multiplier since BS is much less relevant, and template weapons have no multiplier. Twin-linking a weapon and similar abilities are included here, as an additional multiplier that is applied after the BS adjustment.

5) Multiply each weapon's cost by an arc factor (90* sponson, 180* sponson, hull, turret, etc).

6) Add the value of any offensive abilities that don't have a weapon stat line.

7) Add up all of this. Now you have the total offense of the vehicle.

Defense:

1) Choose AV for each facing. This will give you the base defensive multiplier.

2) Choose how many HP, and multiply the AV multiplier by the per-HP cost.

3) Multiply the previous value by a value for each defensive ability. Defensive abilities that stack (for example, a 4++ and a holofield) are multiplied one after the other. The value of this depends on how much additional protection the ability gives. A holofield is a flat 50% damage reduction, so it has a 2x multiplier. A 4++ provides 50% damage reduction but does not stack with other saves, so it might have a 1.8x multiplier.

4) Multiply the final offensive value by your total defense value. This is the total value of the vehicle.

Other:

1) Multiply the total vehicle value by any bonuses or penalties for miscellaneous rules (the Superheavy or Fast types, being a flyer or skimmer, etc).

Final Check:

1) Check that each vehicle meets the following conditions: a normal vehicle has at least 2 HP and costs at least 30 points, a superheavy vehicle has at least 6 HP and costs at least 200 points.


EXAMPLE WITH COMPLETELY ARBITRARY NUMBERS:

I make the Peregrine battle tank. It's an awesome model with a quad laser turret and a hull-mounted flamer. It's also a skimmer.

Offense:

1) Since this is a long-range support tank I choose the long-range role.

2) I choose to represent its quad laser turret as two twin-linked lascannons. I pay the full 20 points each for the lascannons, but I only pay half the usual 5 point cost for the flamer since I will rarely get to use it.

3) No special rules, no change.

4) I suck at life, so I don't think I should get better than BS 2. My lascannons get a 0.75x multiplier for below-average BS and are 15 points, my flamer remains 2.5 points. However, my lascannons are TL so they get a 1.5x multiplier and finally end up at 22.5 points each.

5) The flamer is hull-mounted, so no change. The lascannons are turret-mounted so they get a 1.5x multiplier, and are 33.75 points each.

6) No other abilities, no change.

7) Total price is 33.75x2 + 2.5 = 70 points.

Defensive:

1) I choose 12/11/11 for my AV. This is worth 0.25 points.

2) It's a normal vehicle, so 3 HP. Stat line is now worth 0.75 points.

3) My tank has awesome electronic warfare, so let's give it holofields. That's a 2x multiplier, which brings us to 1.5 points.

4) We multiply the firepower of the tank (70 points) by the defense protecting that firepower (1.5) and get a total of 105 points.

Other:

1) It's a fast skimmer, so we apply the skimmer (1.1x) and fast (1.2x) multipliers to get 138.6 points. Round up to 139 points.

Check:

1) It's a normal vehicle at 139 points, so it's legal.

The primary issue I see with this is the amounts f space the table will take up and the multiple multipliers causing vehicles to become too expensive.

If you want your tank to have a role, and are wanting the price of weapons to vary based on that role, why not just decide when you come up with the idea that you aren't going to add any short range guns to a long range tank? Why should a generalist unit pay more for a battle cannon than a ranged specific variant when it is already going to be better for the long ranged specific vehicle?

I'm sorry perigrin but what you are suggesting isn't at all user friendly and you said so yourself that it doesn't address the issues that you already have with the system. I would love for you to build on the idea and we can compare the two systems to each other when you get your first draft. But as it stands I don't think it will actually produce better results than the changes I am already making...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that in the above example only superheavy vehicles (and fortifications in my opinion) can have the holofields. Otherwise it is just another word for invulnerable saves for eldar units.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The primary issue I see with this is the amounts f space the table will take up

This is the digital age. Space for text is free.

and the multiple multipliers causing vehicles to become too expensive.

Huh? Multipliers don't cause vehicles to become too expensive because you have full control over what those multipliers are. If the end result is too expensive you figure out which multiplier(s) is (are) responsible for it and you reduce them. In fact, you can even have negative multipliers that make a vehicle cheaper.

If you want your tank to have a role, and are wanting the price of weapons to vary based on that role, why not just decide when you come up with the idea that you aren't going to add any short range guns to a long range tank?

Because of fluff. VDR-style systems are complete idiocy for competitive gaming, you can never make one that won't be exploitable and if the goal is just to make the vehicle that helps your chances of winning the most people will exploit your system. The only reason for VDR-style systems to exist is to give point costs to fluffy models you've come up with and let you put them on the table. And those units have mixed weapons because they have them in the fluff. A Basilisk has a heavy flamer even though it's worthless on the tabletop because the "real" Basilisk is armed with one as a backup plan. A functioning system has to handle these fluff-based designs appropriately, you can't just depend on "nobody would ever build something that inefficient".

Why should a generalist unit pay more for a battle cannon than a ranged specific variant when it is already going to be better for the long ranged specific vehicle?

You have that backwards. Specialist units pay less for weapons outside of their role, not their primary guns. The long-range tank pays full price for the battlecannon, and possibly even pays a few points more for it. However, it gets a discount on the flamer that it probably won't use very often. The idea is that you can take weapons/upgrades/etc that are present in the fluff but not very effective on the tabletop without having to pay full price for them or screwing up the price for those weapons/upgrades/etc on units that can use them effectively.

I'm sorry perigrin but what you are suggesting isn't at all user friendly

That's an inherent problem with VDR-style systems. A reasonably smart person would fix it by putting the whole mess into a spreadsheet or program so all of the math is hidden and the user just picks the options that apply to their vehicle.

and you said so yourself that it doesn't address the issues that you already have with the system.

No, I said that it doesn't completely fix those issues. It addresses them and comes a lot closer to the right answer than your system.

I would love for you to build on the idea and we can compare the two systems to each other when you get your first draft.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not going to waste my time refining a VDR-style system because I have no need for it. If I make any rules for 40k I'm going to use the same guess-playtest-refine cycle that GW (like WOTC, etc) uses. I'm just telling you how to get a better system if you insist on making VDR-style rules.

Actually, a Basilisk should have a HB (and spend the extra 5 pts on a PMHS), because:
1) it's a "FREE" weapon (actually 5+5 points);
2) they help with Weapon Destroyed, as 2/3 won't be the main gun;
3) if the main gun does get destroyed, it can tool around throwing 6 AP shots at 30-36" that nobody is going to care about.

That's under a Fluffy system in which units look good and are costed fairly.

However, under VDR, that same 10 points takes on a very different character. For +5 pts more, you can upgrade that HB or PMHS to a BS3 Vanquisher Cannon with 72" range and S8.

And that's the issue with (any) VDR in a nutshell. If you cost the guns correctly, the first thing you need to do is compare all of them based on pure utility. So that you don't have 20 pts for a 48" S9 AP2 Lascannon costing +33% more than a 15-pt 72" S8 AP2 Vanquisher Cannon.

Then, you have to address the BS, so that you don't have people taking 7 BS 3 Vanquisher Cannons for 3.5 hits per turn on their superheavies instead of 3 BS5 Vanquisher Cannons scoring only 2.5 hits per turn.

And that's just the Imperial Weapons table.

I was alerted to that discrepancy, and I am going to adjust accordingly. My original setup was to proof it against games workshop's points so people wouldn't be able to use it, find the points were off for the vehicle they made, and claim the system didn't work. A couple guns made it through the cracks when I started actually adjusting prices to show what they should be at.

You said you were lurking here for a while, you didn't notice I made the cannon in question 25 points base for bs3?

Also, peregrine, if the long range tank is paying slightly less for one weapon and slightly more for the other, wouldn't that equal out to the same point total as simply having them be a set price based on ballistic skill? Even if not the same, if it is within 4 or 5 points is it really going to matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't like computers or spreadsheets. I prefer to use pencil and paper for my math whether it is a 13th age character or this system. Just personal preference. I also don't appreciate the "reasonably smart" jab. That was unwarranted.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, peregrine, if the long range tank is paying slightly less for one weapon and slightly more for the other, wouldn't that equal out to the same point total as simply having them be a set price based on ballistic skill?

If you have the right combination of weapons, sure. But the point is that you aren't guaranteed to have that combination. For example, if I leave the flamer off the example tank I posted then you can't count on the flamer balancing out the lascannons. You have to price each weapon without making any assumptions about what else the user is going to take.

But really, it just goes back to what I've been telling you about considering all possible units, not just ones in a certain narrow range that you think people will make. If your system can handle the unusual stuff then it's probably going to handle the normal units as well. But if you only build it to handle the normal units and overlook flaws in the method then you're going to run into problems when someone does make something weird. After all, making interesting new units is the whole point of a system like the VDR.

Even if not the same, if it is within 4 or 5 points is it really going to matter?

Maybe, maybe not. But the difference can potentially be more than 4-5 points. And remember, weapons were just the one easy example of role-dependent pricing I gave. Other things could vary significantly in role as well. For example, high rear AV is worth a lot more on an aggressive tank that has to get up close and risk getting hit on rear armor than on an artillery unit that spends the whole game with its back to the table edge. So a long-range tank might get a discount on rear AV, while a short-range tank might pay a little more for it. On the other hand, a short-range tank might get a point reduction for suffering the Heavy type because it makes it much harder to get into range, while the long-range tank might get a point increase because the movement penalty rarely applies while shooting the extra weapons is a significant bonus.

Add up all of the role-dependent values and you could easily get into the range where people make epic hate threads about a unit that is too expensive or too cheap by that much.

Also, I don't like computers or spreadsheets. I prefer to use pencil and paper for my math whether it is a 13th age character or this system. Just personal preference.

Then you're screwed. You can't pretend that it's 1980 and expect to make a successful VDR-style system. Even the original VDR would be an obnoxious waste of time if not for the fact that someone made a digital version that does all of the math for you.

 Peregrine wrote:


Maybe, maybe not. But the difference can potentially be more than 4-5 points. And remember, weapons were just the one easy example of role-dependent pricing I gave. Other things could vary significantly in role as well. For example, high rear AV is worth a lot more on an aggressive tank that has to get up close and risk getting hit on rear armor than on an artillery unit that spends the whole game with its back to the table edge. So a long-range tank might get a discount on rear AV, while a short-range tank might pay a little more for it. On the other hand, a short-range tank might get a point reduction for suffering the Heavy type because it makes it much harder to get into range, while the long-range tank might get a point increase because the movement penalty rarely applies while shooting the extra weapons is a significant bonus.

Add up all of the role-dependent values and you could easily get into the range where people make epic hate threads about a unit that is too expensive or too cheap by that much.

Another role-dependent thing might be melta on fast tank-hunter vehicles.
Eg a Piranha. The combination of Fusion Blaster + Fast Skimmer => Get in opponent's rear arcs really easily, adds a multiplier to the cost that wouldn't be there for Fusion Blaster + Slow Tank or Burst Cannon + Fast Skimmer.

But the issue I am seeing is why give them a points break on things that don't fit with their theme? Close quarters tank would take higher rear armor, long range tank won't. And if I give the long range tank a significant points reduction on shorter range guns and rear armor suddenly it is a long range cannon that doubles as an effective short range counter assault vehicle.

The balance for the short range tank hunter with meltaguns is the threat posed to the vehicle by needing to be that close to begin with. That has always been the case.

If a short range tank is paying more for both protection on the rear armor and possible more for the short range guns it carries, then it will actually become more and more inefficient in points the more specialised it becomes. If that is seen to be the case, then everyone will just use the generic vehicle option. If everyone realises that, then the huge pile of extra work you are asking me to do is completely wasted. I dont like the idea of making things nobody will want to use...

Vehicle theme:

Long Range:
Weap1.....x pts
Weap2.....X pts

Mid Range:
Weap3.....x pts
Weap4.....x pts

Short Range:
Weap5......x pts
Weap6......x pts

If you wish to take a weapon from another table to the one of your theme, add x% points to that weapon.

Aaaand, done.

Or, I could simply let them make things that aren't synergistic without penalising them for it...

What would you consider an imperial knight to be as a roll? How about a dreadnaught? Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?

How about the baneblade? If 24" is short or medium range you are actually asking me to make it pay MORE than it is now because of the demolisher cannon.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

You know what you want, but I don't think you are seeing all of the ramifications of what you're asking me to do. What percentage should I charge? When you are talking about a percentage, you do realise how small that number is going to be based on the minute amount of points each gun costs, especially the short range/ small arms type weapons.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?

The issue is not 5 points. The issue is being off by 50+, 100+ pts value in these larger units.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But the issue I am seeing is why give them a points break on things that don't fit with their theme?

Because those things aren't very effective. A hull flamer on a Basilisk that never leaves the corner of the table is worth much less than a hull flamer on a Hellhound that spends the whole game within template range. So if you have a single price for a flamer then at least one of those tanks is going to have the wrong point cost.

And if I give the long range tank a significant points reduction on shorter range guns and rear armor suddenly it is a long range cannon that doubles as an effective short range counter assault vehicle.

And at that point you've invoked the "if you can't convince your opponent that your role is accurate then you don't get the role" rule. A Basilisk with a bunch of melta guns added "just in case" is no longer a pure long-range support unit and pays the standard generic-role price for everything. The point is not to be able to choose whichever role gives you the best deal, it's so that you can design fluff-driven units without overpaying for upgrades that have minimal value on the tabletop. If you try stupid stuff like labeling a Hellhound a "long range artillery unit" to get cheaper prices for template weapons then your opponent is just going to tell you to stop being TFG and pay the default price.

The balance for the short range tank hunter with meltaguns is the threat posed to the vehicle by needing to be that close to begin with.

Again, you keep getting this backwards. The role-dependent prices are not about the unit's primary weapons. They're about not overpaying or underpaying for secondary weapons or support abilities that fall outside of the primary role. You don't want a situation where you have an awesome WWII artillery tank model with a machine gun as a secondary weapon (because the real WWII tank had one) but you feel like you can't put that machine gun in the 40k rules because you don't want to overpay for a rule that is only added to stay WYSIWYG and has minimal value in the tabletop game.

If that is seen to be the case, then everyone will just use the generic vehicle option.

Well yes, that's the whole point! Most vehicles should be generic because that's how they function in 40k. The point of acknowledging different roles is that specialist vehicles do exist, even if they're less common, and a good system has to be able to handle them appropriately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?

Again, you have that backwards. If anything the dread would pay less for the lascannon because it expects to spend multiple turns locked in combat and unable to shoot.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

...

Have you even been reading what I said about the roles? The Basilisk would probably end up cheaper under the role system than under your existing rules because it would no longer pay full price for the hull gun it will rarely use. It may or may not end up cheaper than the GW version because GW doesn't use a VDR-style system and may have already accounted for the inability to use the hull gun effectively (among other potential sources of cost differences).

What percentage should I charge?

You figure it out, just like you figure out the component prices for everything else.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?

Because the only reason for having a VDR-style system is to get as close as possible to the correct price for a new unit. If you're accepting that you're going to get the wrong answer then you might as well just do what everyone else does and use the iterative playtesting approach to determine the cost.

I've already accepted the lower points per hullpoint on superheavies to eliminate that issue. Making things pay extra for gear that doesn't fit their theme will actually cause MORE issues with those units because of the swing in points that will bring. Lord of skulls works out alomst exactly with the system I have now. What point percentage should I ADD to his CURRENT cost to make up for his versatility? Do you see what this idea ACTUALLY does to generalist units like him and the imperial knight? As if they weren't trying to overcome their inherent synergy issues already you guys want them to actually pay MORE for what they have. And if you are dropping the price on one weapon system or another to compensate then you really aren't doing anything but creating an artificial problem you feel needs addressed. Because the idea of the long ranged wraithknight (being specialised and all) actually being worth what he is and the imperial knight being priced higher scares the hell out of me.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Or, I could simply let them make things that aren't synergistic without penalising them for it...
You are aware that "x" as a numerical value can be negative when needed, right?

What would ou consider an imperial knight to be as a roll? How about a dreadnaught? Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?
If it took a D-sword, melee. If it didn't, long ranged.

How about the baneblade? If 24" is short or medium range you are actually asking me to make it pay MORE than it is now because of the demolisher cannon.
Medium, including the HB and Demo cannons. And I am not setting costs here. Quite frankly, I think most of your costings are skewed waay too far in one direction or the other. Dear lord.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

You know what you want, but I don't think you are seeing all of the ramifications of what you're asking me to do. What percentage should I charge? When you are talking about a percentage, you do realise how small that number is going to be based on the minute amount of points each gun costs, especially the short range/ small arms type weapons.
Hey, I'm just giving an idea of how to implement a way of accounting for weapon synergy, not do your work for you.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?
Because it regularly escapes you that margins of imbalance quickly run into the hundreds of points in your system.

The most ridiculous thing is that there is no intelligent baseline for weapon costs. If his system worked the way it's supposed to, I should be able to build any weapon into any other weapon within +/- 10% after rounding by +/- 5 points. That is the bare minimum for a functional system, because it means that mathematically all of the offense traits are consistent. If he can't even do that for the BS3 Imperial core, how can anyone expect it works as the system scales up?

And no, changing the number of one weapon option does not fix the system.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I've already accepted the lower points per hullpoint on superheavies to eliminate that issue.

This has nothing to do with superheavy HP prices. The Basilisk, the unit I'm using as an example, is not a superheavy.

Making things pay extra for gear that doesn't fit their theme will actually cause MORE issues with those units because of the swing in points that will bring.

Please go back and read what I've been telling you before discussing this anymore. Units pay LESS for gear that doesn't fit their theme, not more.

Read what others are posting perigrin, sometimes I answer them too.

Salym, the baneblade cannon reaches from one end of the table to another. To insinuate that is is a medium range weapon would mean that things like lascannons and railguns arent long range. That is absurd. And IF you consider the baneblade medium range then you were suggesting it pay MORE for the giant long range cannon on top. Making it MORE expensive than it's current price point.

The weapon upgrades are never going to be able to equal out between weapons, they just give you a way to fudge weapons to fit a theme you may want. I am looking at ways to balance them more correctly, such as the long barrel upgrade being a 20% increase but giving an extra foot of distance. That equals out to every purchase of that bonus you have one more turn where your opponent will be in range to cause damage to them based on table size. Other things such as blast are going to be directly related to the size of the minimum area damage between the different sizes. (Normal base size for single shot weapons, then three inch, then 5 etc) so the points spent equal out to the extra area covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the basilisk is about 40 points too expensive to put on a normal sized table. It pays too much for excessive range, just like other similarly ranged weapons in the game. It has nothing to do with the +/- 5 points for the heavy bolter.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Read what others are posting perigrin, sometimes I answer them too.
But just barely.

Salym, the baneblade cannon reaches from one end of the table to another. To insinuate that is is a medium range weapon would mean that things like lascannons and railguns arent long range. That is absurd. And IF you consider the baneblade medium range then you were suggesting it pay MORE for the giant long range cannon on top. Making it MORE expensive than it's current price point.
There's an "e" in my name, y'know. And no, I'm not insinuating that the BC is a medium range weapon - I listed the mid-range weapons. Heavy Bolters and Demo Cannons. The HB due to having a 36" range, and the Demo for having 24" +blast radius +forward scatter potential.

The weapon upgrades are never going to be able to equal out between weapons, they just give you a way to fudge weapons to fit a theme you may want. I am looking at ways to balance them more correctly, such as the long barrel upgrade being a 20% increase but giving an extra foot of distance. That equals out to every purchase of that bonus you have one more turn where your opponent will be in range to cause damage to them based on table size. Other things such as blast are going to be directly related to the size of the minimum area damage between the different sizes. (Normal base size for single shot weapons, then three inch, then 5 etc) so the points spent equal out to the extra area covered.
Extra range =/= longer time of enemies in range. Extra range =/= longer time until enemies reach you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the basilisk is about 40 points too expensive to put on a normal sized table. It pays too much for excessive range, just like other similarly ranged weapons in the game. It has nothing to do with the +/- 5 points for the heavy bolter.
So make it cheaper? This isn't a GW table, despite the similarities.

I am listing a point drop for any weapon with a range greater than 72" to show where the point totals stand for average gameplay.

Sorry about the misspell, my bad buddy. Longer range does allow you to fire at long range enemies sooner. The points would look better that way and makes sense on the tabletop.

And if you look at what was said, if the baneblade tank is a medium range tank, you actually asked me to make the long range gun on the medium range tank more expensive.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I am listing a point drop for any weapon with a range greater than 72" to show where the point totals stand for average gameplay.

Sorry about the misspell, my bad buddy. Longer range does allow you to fire at long range enemies sooner. The points would look better that way and makes sense on the tabletop.
While a correlation occurs, it has limits. After a point, additional range does not give you those things - especially with deepstrike and outflanking.

And if you look at what was said, if the baneblade tank is a medium range tank, you actually asked me to make the long range gun on the medium range tank more expensive.
Yes. But the base price of the main gun should have been around the 80-100 point mark, not 130-160.

I thought this was a fun thread when it first popped up, and gave me some neat ideas.

Now its just Dakka being Dakka again.

The massive area covered (over twice the area on the table), the increased chance for a penetrating hit and higher chance to wound (the higher strength), chance to cause an "explodes" result and ignore every armor value in the game (ap2) when compared to the battle cannon it is in every way but range it is superior.

I still can't understand why you would think it is barely worth more than the knight errant's melta cannon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I feel you slaanesh-devotee, I feel you.

I don't, it's your prices.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Salym, the baneblade cannon reaches from one end of the table to another. To insinuate that is is a medium range weapon would mean that things like lascannons and railguns arent long range. That is absurd. And IF you consider the baneblade medium range then you were suggesting it pay MORE for the giant long range cannon on top. Making it MORE expensive than it's current price point.

But the tank itself is a medium-range tank. It has 72" range on its main gun (the same as the battle cannon on a LRBT), but to be effectively it really wants to be in range to use its multiple secondary weapons (with 24-48" range). A dedicated long-range unit is something like the Basilisk, where it sits in the far back corner for the entire game.

That equals out to every purchase of that bonus you have one more turn where your opponent will be in range to cause damage to them based on table size.

No it doesn't, because table size is finite and even on larger-than-normal tables you still have terrain that blocks LOS, units with faster than 12" movement distance, etc.

Also, the basilisk is about 40 points too expensive to put on a normal sized table. It pays too much for excessive range, just like other similarly ranged weapons in the game. It has nothing to do with the +/- 5 points for the heavy bolter.

...

No, it really isn't. Lowering its cost by 40 points would make it only 85 points, and the 75-point FW earthshaker guns are considered one of the most blatantly overpowered units in the game. In fact, the Basilisk isn't even a bad unit compared to sensible stuff like the LRBT. The main reason it's so unpopular is the sheer idiocy of the Wyvern.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The massive area covered (over twice the area on the table)

But remember, table area that doesn't contain models is irrelevant. A 10" blast is great if you're playing a 500,000 point Apocalypse game where every square inch of the table is covered in models, but in normal games a lot of that blast area is wasted on empty table. A 5" blast can already hit all of a 5-man tactical squad or the Rhino they're transported in, so points spent on increasing the size of the blast to 10" will often gain you very little in return.

the increased chance for a penetrating hit and higher chance to wound (the higher strength), chance to cause an "explodes" result

None of which are very relevant. STR 8 wounds virtually everything on a 2+ already, and shooting either weapon at a vehicle is an act of desperation unless there's no better target on the table.

and ignore every armor value in the game (ap2)

This is useful, but only against very specific targets. Most of the time you aren't facing 2+ armor saves. The improvement from AP 4 to AP 3 is much more significant than going from AP 3 to AP 2.

A 10 inch blast can also cover both combat squads and their drop pod. Strength 9 wounds toughness 8 easier than strength 8 does and catching fire warriors, broadsides, and a riptide in a 10" circle where they were hoping to benefit from supporting fire can dramatically change the layout of the game. Also, I could have sworn 2+ save carrying centurions and bikers were REALLY popular nowadays competitively...

While the 75 point earthshaker is indeed potent, the primary reason it is so strong is the fact that each crewman counts as a toughness seven wound in addition to the wounds on the cannon itself with a 3+ save. The basilisk doesn't have NEARLY the same survivability as that and would still cost more due to the ability to move.

As it stands, I am implementing the change in points for hullpoints on superheavies, I'm adding the percentages you asked for things like invul saves and making the holofields scale more effectively. I am going through and calibrating weapon point totals more thoroughly to ensure closer balance between systems.

I am not going to alter price based on percentages and I am not going to attempt to create a role for vehicles to follow in order to facilitate a curve that I don't believe is needed.

It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A 10 inch blast can also cover both combat squads and their drop pod. Strength 9 wounds toughness 8 easier than strength 8 does and catching fire warriors, broadsides, and a riptide in a 10" circle where they were hoping to benefit from supporting fire can dramatically change the layout of the game. Also, I could have sworn 2+ save carrying centurions and bikers were REALLY popular nowadays competitively...
And this occurs outside of cover and LoS block... when?

While the 75 point earthshaker is indeed potent, the primary reason it is so strong is the fact that each crewman counts as a toughness seven wound in addition to the wounds on the cannon itself with a 3+ save. The basilisk doesn't have NEARLY the same survivability as that and would still cost more due to the ability to move.
This is true. I'd have rounded the Basilisk tank down to 120 pts personally, the extra 5 feels like a waste, but get six on the field, and someone's gonna have a bad T1.

As it stands, I am implementing the change in points for hullpoints on superheavies, I'm adding the percentages you asked for things like invul saves and making the holofields scale more effectively. I am going through and calibrating weapon point totals more thoroughly to ensure closer balance between systems.
K.

I am not going to alter price based on percentages and I am not going to attempt to create a role for vehicles to follow in order to facilitate a curve that I don't believe is needed.
K.

It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I thought this was a fun thread when it first popped up, and gave me some neat ideas.

Now its just Dakka being Dakka again.

It wouldn't have been a problem if Lyth didn't pop into the General Discussions and used his VDR as the entire crux of his argument that the Revenant wasn't overpowered. If it was just a fun little chart just to stat out your cool conversions there would've been no heated argument here. But Lyth treated his VDR as if they were a representation of the official rules which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I thought this was a fun thread when it first popped up, and gave me some neat ideas.

Now its just Dakka being Dakka again.

It wouldn't have been a problem if Lyth didn't pop into the General Discussions and used his VDR as the entire crux of his argument that the Revenant wasn't overpowered. If it was just a fun little chart just to stat out your cool conversions there would've been no heated argument here. But Lyth treated his VDR as if they were a representation of the official rules which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

Exactly. If you have to use FW / GW-created items as the base, and are only allowed to swap weapons within the same class, then a VDR isn't a completely terrible way to price things. The resulting units will still be roughly on par with their base, which one can adjust as well.

However, if you allow people to actually *design* things from scratch, and then play them as such, every VDR will always fail. In the case of lyth vdr, more spectacularly than usual, due to lyth's ridiculously false pronouncements of accuracy and correctness.

Thought I was on to something, might still believe what I said even. You disagree. It happens.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A 10 inch blast can also cover both combat squads and their drop pod.

It can, but why are we assuming that there's a drop pod? And who really cares about a drop pod that has already delivered its cargo? Obviously you can list situations where the huge blasts are relevant, but I'm telling you as someone who has actually used IG superheavies that there are a lot of times when that awesome gun is barely doing more than a LRBT.

Strength 9 wounds toughness 8 easier than strength 8 does

So? T8 is rare, and it's usually a terrible idea to waste a 10" blast on a single-model target. If you want to kill T8 MCs/GCs you use lascannon spam, not a Baneblade.

and catching fire warriors, broadsides, and a riptide in a 10" circle where they were hoping to benefit from supporting fire can dramatically change the layout of the game.

...

We're talking about an IG superheavy. Why are we assuming that the Tau player is stupid enough to blob up into perfect template formation so that they can use supporting fire against an army that is never going to charge them? You're making the same mistake that a lot of people mistake when they try to analyze blast and template weapons: you focus on the best-case scenario where you have tons of targets in perfect template formation and annihilate them with a single shot, and ignore the fact that most people aren't that bad at the game.

Also, I could have sworn 2+ save carrying centurions and bikers were REALLY popular nowadays competitively...

They're still not the entire list of potential targets, especially outside of competitive tournaments. And if your VDR system is balanced around the metagame of the most hardcore competitive tournaments you're going to make units that are ridiculously overpowered for more casual games. You know, the kind of games where anyone is even going to consider allowing house-ruled vehicles in the first place.

While the 75 point earthshaker is indeed potent, the primary reason it is so strong is the fact that each crewman counts as a toughness seven wound in addition to the wounds on the cannon itself with a 3+ save. The basilisk doesn't have NEARLY the same survivability as that and would still cost more due to the ability to move.

No, obviously the earthshakers are better, but that's not the point. The Basilisk shouldn't even be close to that good, because the earthshaker battery is a blatantly overpowered unit that was borderline broken by the 6th edition change to the artillery rules. If a 40 point discount even puts the Basilisk in the same general power range as the earthshaker battery then 40 points is way too much.

It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions

And when you ignore our suggestions we will continue to point out how your system does not work.

and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.

Why, because their ego would be damaged by having to admit that their point costs are wrong?

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
A 10 inch blast can also cover both combat squads and their drop pod. Strength 9 wounds toughness 8 easier than strength 8 does and catching fire warriors, broadsides, and a riptide in a 10" circle where they were hoping to benefit from supporting fire can dramatically change the layout of the game. Also, I could have sworn 2+ save carrying centurions and bikers were REALLY popular nowadays competitively...
And this occurs outside of cover and LoS block... when?

While the 75 point earthshaker is indeed potent, the primary reason it is so strong is the fact that each crewman counts as a toughness seven wound in addition to the wounds on the cannon itself with a 3+ save. The basilisk doesn't have NEARLY the same survivability as that and would still cost more due to the ability to move.
This is true. I'd have rounded the Basilisk tank down to 120 pts personally, the extra 5 feels like a waste, but get six on the field, and someone's gonna have a bad T1.

As it stands, I am implementing the change in points for hullpoints on superheavies, I'm adding the percentages you asked for things like invul saves and making the holofields scale more effectively. I am going through and calibrating weapon point totals more thoroughly to ensure closer balance between systems.
K.

I am not going to alter price based on percentages and I am not going to attempt to create a role for vehicles to follow in order to facilitate a curve that I don't believe is needed.
K.

It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

Thank you, that was a very thoughtful and appropriate (not to mention humorous) response. Their math is wrong on a lot of things, but it seems to be getting worse as time goes on whereas older units tend to stay consistent. (At least until they get a new model) I felt there may have been a time when they were building the game where they may have HAD a system in place to try and ensure their math wouldn't get too crazy. I thought perhaps the old vdr may have been a remnant from that time where they tweeked it to ensure people couldn't actually math out their units accurately. I started tweaking the rules from there in the hopes of finding what they may have "broken" to ensure that happened. It turned out to be the points spent on speed and armor values primarily and then the gradual "codex creep" of weapon power. Did I fail to find every flaw, OBVIOUSLY! Does the system work a good percentage of the time? Yes. I am happy with how it is going. Thank you for your help!

Edit. Stupid fat fingers.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I thought perhaps the old vdr may have been a remnant from that time where they tweeked it to ensure people couldn't actually math out their units accurately.

Why would they want to keep people from getting the point costs right for their own units? Remember that the VDR comes from the good old days when GW encouraged people to make and use custom models/terrain/rules/etc. The much more likely explanation is that GW was telling the truth when they said "we don't do our points this way", and the VDR is just a genuine attempt to give a little inspiration to people who don't have the resources to do a proper iterative playtesting process.

That's fair. I still believe there may have been a time when they actually did something like this to form the baseline for where their point totals would be. Even if they don't do it anymore (see ta'unar, wraithknight, and the old transcendent c'tan) the basis of that math is still in there (IMO)

I am looking for it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That's fair. I still believe there may have been a time when they actually did something like this to form the baseline for where their point totals would be. Even if they don't do it anymore (see ta'unar, wraithknight, and the old transcendent c'tan) the basis of that math is still in there (IMO)

I seriously doubt they ever did. The VDR was way back in 3rd edition, and by that point they weren't using a system like that. So maybe they used something similar way back in 2nd edition or earlier, but the game was so different back then that any points or rules from that era are not at all relevant anymore.

Plus, even ignoring the historical argument, why would GW waste time on a VDR-style system for their own rules? The only purpose of it is to allow players to have a common system that gives a sense of "officialness" to custom designs and lets everyone say "let's allow VDR stuff" instead of having to analyze and approve each individual vehicle. But if you're writing the rules you don't have to bother with any of that. You just guess at a point cost based on similar units and your understanding of the game, playtest to see how it works, adjust the point cost based on playtesting feedback, playtest more, etc, until everyone agrees that the unit is balanced. And then you say "this is how it is", and it's official rules. You don't need to show your work because you have the ultimate authority to declare that something is part of the game.

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

.... which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

Cool.

Bet you guys have had fun.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

.... which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

Cool.

Bet you guys have had fun.

Yep, and that's what the H-H-Hobby is all about!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

.... which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

Cool.

Bet you guys have had fun.

I used to have fun. Then I started playing 40k competitively. Now my days are filled with misery and self loathing as I sit hunched over a work bench doing the mold-line work on 6 Imperial Knights. Wondering where did it all go wrong.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:
I thought this was a fun thread when it first popped up, and gave me some neat ideas.

Now its just Dakka being Dakka again.

His rules sort of work if you just want some random fluffy stuff for you and your mates. Some of his stuff is improperly balanced, and it seems to be built around the assumption that you are playing apocalypse, but these are things that you would have to discuss and agree upon with your opponent anyways if you bring a custom unit. The problem is that he spent pages arguing that the Eldar titan is balanced on the general discussion, bringing everyone into a fierce debate, before introducing this VDR as proof that it is balanced. That discussion then got shunted here after that thread got locked for going off topic.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Yea. . . no. The version of the VDR that I found could generate a unit that costs 0 points (small, open topped, immobile vehicle AV: F:10 S:9 R:9) but there is nothing that could result in negative points.

 the Signless wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Yea. . . no. The version of the VDR that I found could generate a unit that costs 0 points (small, open topped, immobile vehicle AV: F:10 S:9 R:9) but there is nothing that could result in negative points.

That's because he has made some changes.


The original problem:

Peregrine wrote:
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 know Lythrandire Biehrellian's rules give negative points. I was refering to GW's official VDR to counter the claim that they were worse and would result in lower numbers.

I apologise if I was unclear with my wording.

 Slaanesh-Devotee wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

.... which put them under greater scrutiny by experienced, competitive players.

Cool.

Bet you guys have had fun.

I remember playing with the original GW VDR, and it was fun for the first week, when people brought in cool models that they had, and used the GW VDR to stat the models as-is.

Then people started scratch-building things to match optimized VDR designs, and it all fell apart.

I allowed negative points because some vehicles are barely worth the weapons on them. The lowest you could do in the old system was a 5 point vehicle with av9 all the way around. But their vehicles were also way overpriced for what they brought.

Couple other changes, removing the immobilized trait from the rules section and adding it in as a caveat for deep strike (gives deep strike for free if it becomes immobile after the drop) originally put it in to allow people to make drop pods. Decided to only allow it in certain circumstances instead. Also going to be dropping the stealth and shrouded options from the vdr. I added them in because the forgeworld flyers for eldar had them. Not sure I really want to see how broken a unit with those things can get.


I am hoping to not have the issues the old vdr had. I want people to be able to build whatever they want (even super optimized units) and it still won't be as bad as some of the things games workshop puts out.

A guy can dream

Let me get this straight - for the Tau, a monstrous creature cannot have a heavy burst cannon... yet the riptide is a monstrous creature and is currently the only model that can take it in official game material. What?

Of course, it's still possible to create broken tau stuff regardless, but that really doesn't make sense. Disallowing heavy railguns from MCs and GCs also does not make sense since the new tau suit from FW came out and is a GC... I like what you tried to do, but you need to write in an exception for Tau because battlesuits are creatures, not vehicles.

Furthermore, you forgot to add rail rifles to the tau list.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

I'm sure it wasn't, but that's not something to be proud of. Anyone can make math mistakes and put 5 instead of 50 or whatever. But allowing a negative-point vehicle is a sign of a much greater problem. You claim to have been testing your rules for months, and somehow you failed to notice the problem. And it's the first thing I tried to exploit when you challenged me to find a broken unit! So either you're exaggerating how much playtesting work you did, or the primary goal of your playtesting was boosting your ego by "proving" that you were right about the costs of GW units instead of deliberately trying to break your own system.

I agree with Peregrine. Lyth, you need your playtesters to try and break your system or you'll never know about the fundamental problems with it.
Your playtesters never found these problems because they weren't looking for them.

I agree you need to try and break the system for proper playtesting, but also mistakes will happen when a system changes so much over a short amount of time.

Also, being rude doesn't make for a very good environment for testing or improving anything. It just makes the critic an a-hole, and causes the creator to dig in his/her heels. Do I think there are some very valid criticisms about this system? Yes. Doesn't give you a reason to be a complete d-bag about it. I would be really surprised if any of you actually talked to people in the real world the way you talk to them here. If you do, then sooner or later you will probably piss off the wrong person sometime. The town I grew up in had someone who talked like the way you guys do to people. He said something to the wrong wackjob. He now resides 6 feet under. It is something I try and keep in mind whenever I deal with or have a conversation with anyone. How unstable is the person I am talking to.

I know it is a pain in the butt, but a more battletech(ish) approach might be better with a BV 2.0 like system might be better. Even though the math there can make my brain hurt at times. Calculator definitely recommended.

Granted that system has it's flaws as well. Quite easy to make a broken as crap light mech that can destroy a 100 ton behemoth. And Lyth try not to get too stuck on the rudeness and abrasive attitudes of some of these people. Some have some good ideas once you get past their apparent complete lack of manners and social graces. Others are just people who like to tear things down to make themselves feel better.

Well said Norse.
It's suddenly gotten very heated, and with the issues on either side that won't help anything.

 McNinja wrote:
Let me get this straight - for the Tau, a monstrous creature cannot have a heavy burst cannon... yet the riptide is a monstrous creature and is currently the only model that can take it in official game material. What?

Of course, it's still possible to create broken tau stuff regardless, but that really doesn't make sense. Disallowing heavy railguns from MCs and GCs also does not make sense since the new tau suit from FW came out and is a GC... I like what you tried to do, but you need to write in an exception for Tau because battlesuits are creatures, not vehicles.

Furthermore, you forgot to add rail rifles to the tau list.

Derp! I was adding those in at the same time as other superheavy level weapons. I am so sorry about that. The only superheavy weapon in the tau list should be the heavy railguns (strength D version)

Edit:also, the underlined weapons are available to gargantuan creatures as well. I apparently didn't put them in that particular list...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

I can't speak for others, but my absence was do to personal reasons. I am trying to get back into the game, but I am having difficulties doing so after losing a portion of my army to a small house fire.

Sorry to hear that! What army was it, I may have some lying around...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Let me get this straight - for the Tau, a monstrous creature cannot have a heavy burst cannon... yet the riptide is a monstrous creature and is currently the only model that can take it in official game material. What?

Of course, it's still possible to create broken tau stuff regardless, but that really doesn't make sense. Disallowing heavy railguns from MCs and GCs also does not make sense since the new tau suit from FW came out and is a GC... I like what you tried to do, but you need to write in an exception for Tau because battlesuits are creatures, not vehicles.

Furthermore, you forgot to add rail rifles to the tau list.

Derp! I was adding those in at the same time as other superheavy level weapons. I am so sorry about that. The only superheavy weapon in the tau list should be the heavy railguns (strength D version)

Edit:also, the underlined weapons are available to gargantuan creatures as well. I apparently didn't put them in that particular list...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

Tomorrow I'll be able to give more, and better, feedback, been studying for about 8 hours with a huge exam in the morning... So far I think this whole thing is really cool, even if you can make some clearly broken gak, showing a little restraint allows for some pretty cool things!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Sorry to hear that! What army was it, I may have some lying around...

I play Iron Hands, but don't worry about it. The portion that went up were models I weren't using much or I needed to redo in some way which is why they are in boxes. I was planning on taking my army in a new direction anyway, and I see it as more of an opportunity to do so. Once I get some more critical things taken care of, I hope to start collecting and building again. The new codex is the thing that has really stopped me the most. I need to buy a bunch of rhino/razorback kits for the gladius strikeforce and right now I just don't have the time and money. I will have it sooner or later but it is kinda depressing. A lot harder to get games in these days anyway now that the local gaming store is closed up. But thank you for the offer.

I am also thinking about starting a IK or Ad mech/Skitarii army. Which is another problem cant decide fully what I want to do lol.

I am honestly getting fed up with my Iron Hands. Well more of GW with their eradicating anything unique about the IH. The nerfs getting old too. Dreads are better, but overall I got a big nerf and I don't enjoy being pretty much forced to play bikes....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Considering all I am doing is updating an old system, I figured I didn't need to write out why it exists since it would be the exact same reason the old one existed. To give a (somewhat) accurate point value to cool models people have or want to make. I said later as to why some things went unnoticed, primarily that those who were really taking this thing appart went quiet. Then there are those who had no feedback, they simply said something snarky, felt proud of their accomplishment, and never came back when I asked them to explain.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Jesus christ dude calm the feth down, it's just a game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
To give a (somewhat) accurate point value to cool models people have or want to make.

Which is a fine goal. You wouldn't get nearly as much criticism if you'd stick to "it will give you a crude approximation of your unit's value" and stop trying to use your numbers to "prove" that GW's point costs are reasonable or accurate.

But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.

Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

There is some serious snark in here.

Wow.

Lyth I will admit I haven't put a whole lot of time into trying to break this system. I'll hop on it as soon as I can and list any holes I find.

Btw, I know its tough trying to make stuff like this. I have had the same issues (although not as bad as they are right now) with my Imperial Codex.

Don't get discouraged or upset, just try to fix whatever problems pop up and make it better.


You can do it buddy

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

 McNinja wrote:
Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

The avenger gattling cannon in the vdr is the one from the dark angels flyer/forge world avenger and is only heavy 6. I will add the double fire one from the warden to the list, basically giving the current one speed loader, that would put it at 100 points. Which is why the double gun version would be more expensive than the melee/shooty versions.

The upgraded heavy burst cannon would be terrifying, but only to flyers and skimmers. Interceptor no longer allows a skyfire weapon to fire at normal bs versus ground targets. Two of those at 200 points on a gargantuan creature of that caliber is more than enough AA for most any game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

Did you mean revenant in the first example? (The wraithknight is 100 points too cheap, discovered that when I made the monstrous creature builder)

Also, if they do use a base system and I can get close to what they have, then I can pick out the outliers and show where games workshop changed their point totals to sell models (or whatever their reasons are)

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

Did you mean revenant in the first example? (The wraithknight is 100 points too cheap, discovered that when I made the monstrous creature builder)

Also, if they do use a base system and I can get close to what they have, then I can pick out the outliers and show where games workshop changed their point totals to sell models (or whatever their reasons are)

Yea, I meant Revenant. And didn't we spend several pages proving that GW very clearly does not use a design ruleset?

I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks. Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner. It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.
Aside from GW being a poor judge and potential liar, a "base pricing guide" in no way alludes to any mathematical formulae. I might have a base guide on how to build a car, but that doesn't mean I put more than 10 seconds thought into it - simply "get box, attach wheels, attach engine". The most mathematical thing they likely do is look at a CSM and think to themselves "how can we make this blatantly more inefficient than a normal SM?".

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks.
It really doesn't. When we playtest things like the Revenant or WK, we naturally know its overpowered, because it wiped the board without effort. We don't need a VDR to tell us that.

Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner.
If I taught someone to play 40k, and only showed them the values of a SM unit, they would not notice that points are unrelated to performance. It is through testing and then statistical extrapolation in comparison to other units/codexes that we come to this conclusion. This first thought of anyone in a points-based system is "well they have point values, so more points = more better".

It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."
Erm. What. If a unit seems fine as/is, that justifies basing the formulas around that unit, not refuting the use of formulas...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks. Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner. It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."

I think you're just putting far too much stock in the idea that they may have a system. Who cares if they do or they don't, WE know from actually playing the game that some things are wildly mispriced so what does it matter if GW use a purely mathematical system, a purely play testing system or a mix of the two? Whatever they use sucks, we know this already.

I doubt they just plonk the model down without taking a guess at the points first, and the "system" for doing that could just be a complex algorithm or it could be a fething dart board for all it matters

A large part of the reason you've been getting flak for your system is because you've tried to use the system to argue things like the Revenant and Baneblade are balanced (when we clearly know one is overpowered and the other underpowered and even a cursory glance at the stats shows that) AND you use the circular argument of "I calculated it so therefore it must be right" and being very stubborn about how the assumptions you based those calculations on could be fundamentally wrong.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

The avenger gattling cannon in the vdr is the one from the dark angels flyer/forge world avenger and is only heavy 6. I will add the double fire one from the warden to the list, basically giving the current one speed loader, that would put it at 100 points. Which is why the double gun version would be more expensive than the melee/shooty versions.

The upgraded heavy burst cannon would be terrifying, but only to flyers and skimmers. Interceptor no longer allows a skyfire weapon to fire at normal bs versus ground targets. Two of those at 200 points on a gargantuan creature of that caliber is more than enough AA for most any game

Ok, just making sure. There's so many weapons that sound almost identical...

Dark Angels have the Avenger BOLT Cannon (Heavy 6, no rending)
Imperial Knights have the Avenger GATLING Cannon (AP3, Heavy 12, Rending)
For a while the big one was solely the Vulcan Mega Bolter (AP3, Heavy 15, can fire twice)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tau OP battlesuit aka bigger riptide - 1830 points (so far)

If modeled, this thing would be bigger than the new Ta'Unar or Stormsurge. I'm not sure which one is bigger, but this would be larger than both.

WS3 BS4 S8 T10 W9 I2 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
GC

Comes stocked with...
1 High Yield Armor Piercing Missile Pod (mounted on back)
R: 72" S7 AP4 Heavy 4, Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, Interceptor
2 Heavy Railguns (mounted on either side of the HYAPMP)
1 Heavy Ion Accelerator (Left Arm)
R: 60" S8 AP1 Heavy 6
R: 60 S9 AP1 Heavy 1, Massive Blast (7")
1 Heavy Burst Annihilator (the fun one, on the Right Arm)
R: 72" S10 AP1 Heavy 8, Armorbane

The burst annihilator is 638 by itself, maybe a little to much for a single weapon. However, if I'm following this correctly, you add all of the upgrades together. A normal railgun taking speed loader 8 times is actually cheaper than this weapon by about 300 points.

Something I noticed is that although it says you can only take 3 upgrades and 1 addition, it doesn't say anything about multiples of 1 upgrade, and the speed loader info implies that you can take 1 addition or 1 upgrade multiple times, but it only counts as one upgrade, otherwise part of the speed loader info doesn't make sense.

There is a column in the modification section labeled "multiple" that means you can take it more than once.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is a column in the modification section labeled "multiple" that means you can take it more than once.

I was just making sure I was doing it right lol. Looks like I am, so huzzah!

Lythrandire Biehrellian, I think I was one of those early critics. I honestly haven't followed the thread (although you've raised my ire every time you make a claim about points or balance in other threads).

Honestly I think what you're doing here is very cool. You should keep it up. It's nice to have a "just for fun" way to ballpark the points for a made-up unit among friends.

HOWEVER:

You need to stop making claims about what your math does not show. You ignore unique special rules because it's impossible to price them. This is a fundamental, fatal, and obvious flaw, if you think you're pricing things accurately (and this isn't the only flaw but I'm not getting into it because it really isn't important). You've found some interesting correlations in GW's point values and that's good enough for a casual VDR ruleset. Don't inflate your claims.

Along those lines, you need to stop making claims based on circular logic. Even if you did find the magic formula GW uses for pricing their units (because GW makes all the same mistakes you do, like ignoring special rules) that doesn't make it balanced. You seem to claim that your math is balanced because GW possibly uses it, and GW's units are balanced because they use math. None of those things follow from one another, they're baseless. This is circular logic.

GW's units don't seem to be balanced at all, so anything you derived from their point values would already be wrong, and your fundamental approach has major issues, so if GW is using it it may explain their poor outcomes.

I personally think it's likely they are using a formula like yours and lazily tweaking the output, making you partly right (you cracked the GW code!) and partly wrong (the GW code doesn't actually work!)

All that said, you should keep up the good work. This is a useful hobby tool and a fun project. Just stop claiming it shows and does things that it doesn't and you won't draw so much flak (unnecessarily harsh flak, I might add).

^ thank you for that.

The primary part of this I feel is balanced is the hullpoints/speed/armor value and the wounds/toughness/save metrics I came up with. Whenever I say I feel something is balanced, I do it based on comparing it to units that I don't see people complain about as being over powered.

With the changes I have done recently, the LAST iteration of the revenant was about 30 points too cheap (the latest one upcoming from forgeworld is a travesty and should be easily worth 1400 points, minimum) and I had compared it to the shadowsword in their most balanced environment (superhuge floor battle where the range of the shadowsword isn't wasted)

Now, the revenant was 30 points too strong on a general basis, the shadowsword is 10 points overpriced generally, but another 80 points too expensive when on an average sized table. Making it 90 points too expensive. The baneblade pays too much for the cannon by about 30 points, then an additional 10 for overcharging for the extra hullpoints making it 40 points too expensive in general. I don't think those numbers are far off the mark.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
You need to stop making claims about what your math does not show.

Along those lines, you need to stop making claims based on circular logic. Even if you did find the magic formula GW uses for pricing their units (because GW makes all the same mistakes you do, like ignoring special rules) that doesn't make it balanced. You seem to claim that your math is balanced because GW possibly uses it, and GW's units are balanced because they use math. None of those things follow from one another, they're baseless. This is circular logic.

Great "hamburger" message there (nice open, something meaty, and a gentle close), except he completely missed it...

Except I haven't missed it. The part where the circle of the circular logic fails is where it keeps being said that I believe games workshop is balanced because they use math. I have on numerous occasions showed a direct imbalance they either missed or outright allowed for whatever reason. I did admit I STARTED with pricing my weapons according to what games workshop does to allow people to build current models and see how accurate the vdr was. I haven't been of that mindset for about three additions now, I simply missed a couple of weapons along the way.

I think my math is becoming more balanced because I am doing what games workshop doesn't, I am asking you guys to help. I am working towards a point where the rules here will allow you to rebuild every monster and vehicle in the game and they will be on a much closer playing field. Then, if you want to build something totally new, it won't be so rediculously powerful as to detract from your opponent's gaming experience.

So, in conclusion, can we stop pretending that I am blindly following what I believe to be the exact model of games workshop's pricing system. It is really getting old.

To show what has changed so far, I am going to post where the point totals are for the units that still exist from the apocalypse supplement if using the vdr.

Imperial guard
Baneblade: 485 points
Banehammer: 348
Banesword:420
Doom hammer: 395
Hell hammer: 530
Shadowsword: 365
Stormlord: 470
Stormsword: 475

Space marines
Thunderhawk gunship: 588

Chaos
Lord of skulls: same, but may charge a unit even if it did not fire at them. Don't forget that this thing can tank shock and ram without losing any shooting or close combat ability (unless I missed something, let me know!)

Orks
Gargantuan squigoth: 390
Stompa: 745

Eldar
Phantom: 1050 points, add pulsar for 424, d-cannon 330, close combat weapon 170
Revenant titan 950

Tyranid
Barbed heirodule 477 points
Harridan: 644
Heirophant biotitan: price the same, but change the biotitan warp field to a 3+ invul.

What do you guys think? How far off do you see these versions in regards to points?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Chaos
Lord of skulls: same, but may charge a unit even if it did not fire at them. Don't forget that this thing can tank shock and ram without losing any shooting or close combat ability (unless I missed something, let me know!)

Compare the LoS (888) to a Knight Warden (375).

'Consensus' is that the LoS is quite overpriced (by ~2-300pts), while the warden is very slightly overpriced (by ~25pts)

Lets say:
- Warden has Ion Shield, 6HP + AV 13/12/12
- Lord of Skulls has 9HP + AV 13/13/11
LOS wins slightly on durabilty, but not by much. In particular, it can be glanced by S5 and penetrated by S6 (think scatterbikes) in the rear which IMO is quite a big loss.

Thunderblitz vs Stomp
Personally I think Stomp is the clear winner here. Thunderblitz works once IF you get the tank shock off against the enemy (they're within 12" at the start of your movement phase), and can be countered by T6 / Invulernables. Stomp works every combat phase at I1, regardless of who you're fighting, and can reliably damage hordes or pinpoint remove-from-play characters. A lord of skulls can be locked in combat by grots; a Warden can stomp his way out much more quickly.


First ranged weapon
Avenger Gatling Cannon vs Hades Gatling Cannon
- Warden has S6 AP3 Heavy 12 rending (at BS4)
- LoS has S8 AP3 Heavy 12 (at BS3)
Against infantry of most kinds (T4 3+), Warden wins out here. Higher BS, + rending to get at 2+ saves.
LoS mostly wins against vehicles, but the Warden does have some unique potential with Rending.


Combat Weapon:
4 SD attacks at I3 vs 3 SD attacks at I4. Much the same, slight advantages to each. On but wait, Warden gets Stomp which is worth another 5 SD attacks on its own...

By my reckoning (no formulas used, just gut instinct) the Warden here is losing by a small amount, though not a lot.
So our 375pt model is fairly equivalent to the 888pt model minus its Gorestorm cannon. If I was building an army, I'd pay about 50pts more for the LoS sans Gorestorm cannon than I would for the Warden. Possibly. The loss of Stomp is HUGE. Plus with the actual rules where he annihilates his potential charge targets...
That means you're valuing the Gorestorm cannon at roughly 500pts. Its a fantastic weapon to be sure... but is it THAT good?

Possibly the issue is that the LoS has some fantastic ranged weapons and combat weapons, but can't use both at the same time; and his various stats/rules prevent him from leaving combat once he starts. ESPECIALLY without the ability to charge something he didn't shoot at. The Warden on the other hand has the ability to tag units to shoot at, but also reliable means for stomping his way out of combat eventually.

Which is why I gave it the rule to allow it to charge anything it wants, I could have added a heavy stubber, but didn't want to change the model.

Don't forget, the lord of skulls is also a daemon, so it gets the 5++ from that. It also has it will not die and gains extra attacks for each hullpoint lost meaning that if they were head to head, the lord of skulls will get a save against anything but a 6, and will get extra attacks when it gets to swing afterwards giving it a much higher chance of killing the imperial knight. It then has the chance to regain the (average 4) hullpoints it lost as it rolls over the wreckage of the knight it just crushed.

It is still a one sided victory for the lord of skulls most of the time. The only issue is (again) the 6 on the destroyer table skipping too far on the damage scale for the price. Which is why I will suggest toning it down to d3+3 in a section at the end of the vdr. It just fixes too many things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, warden can't stomp the lord of skulls.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
if they were head to head

Who cares? Head to head fights are usually a poor way to balance units. The more interesting question is how they perform when fighting against common target types. And there we find that the khorne abomination and the knight have fairly comparable offense, while the abomination has better defense but nothing spectacular. But if you compare the two knights you can get for 888 points to the single abomination you'd almost always rather have the knights in your army. So the abomination is clearly overpriced, and probably by hundreds of points.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
if they were head to head

Who cares? Head to head fights are usually a poor way to balance units. The more interesting question is how they perform when fighting against common target types. And there we find that the khorne abomination and the knight have fairly comparable offense, while the abomination has better defense but nothing spectacular. But if you compare the two knights you can get for 888 points to the single abomination you'd almost always rather have the knights in your army. So the abomination is clearly overpriced, and probably by hundreds of points.

I agree. Also, the LoS was subject to a lot of criticism when it was released because of how overpriced it was. It would be more appropriate to compare a Knight to another SH walker, like a Warhound. Why the LoS wasn't made as a walker, I'll never know.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
To show what has changed so far, I am going to post where the point totals are for the units that still exist from the apocalypse supplement if using the vdr.

Imperial guard
Baneblade: 485 points
Banehammer: 348
Banesword:420
Doom hammer: 395
Hell hammer: 530
Shadowsword: 365
Stormlord: 470
Stormsword: 475

I like these costs. Only objection is to the Lord Of Skulls, who is waaaay more expensive than it needs to be - it is significantly less capable than a pair of IK, yet it costs more.

 Selym wrote:

I like these costs. Only objection is to the Lord Of Skulls, who is waaaay more expensive than it needs to be - it is significantly less capable than a pair of IK, yet it costs more.

Honestly, if I were that deadset on playing Chaos, I would simply use the LoS/Kytan as a chaos Knight. There's nothing the Kytan/LoS can do that the Knight can't do.

 McNinja wrote:

 Selym wrote:

I like these costs. Only objection is to the Lord Of Skulls, who is waaaay more expensive than it needs to be - it is significantly less capable than a pair of IK, yet it costs more.

Honestly, if I were that deadset on playing Chaos, I would simply use the LoS/Kytan as a chaos Knight. There's nothing the Kytan/LoS can do that the Knight can't do.

What book are the kayoss IK in?

 Selym wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

 Selym wrote:

I like these costs. Only objection is to the Lord Of Skulls, who is waaaay more expensive than it needs to be - it is significantly less capable than a pair of IK, yet it costs more.

Honestly, if I were that deadset on playing Chaos, I would simply use the LoS/Kytan as a chaos Knight. There's nothing the Kytan/LoS can do that the Knight can't do.

What book are the kayoss IK in?

I think Imperial Armour 13.

Two knight paladins 750 points
Fighting a lord of skulls on a 6x4 table

If they run, then the lord of skulls will cause 1 hullpoint of damage on average every turn. The two knights will do (if all blasts hit) maybe 2, if rounding up but every turn after the first the LoS will regenerate at least one hullpoint. Neither side will kill the other in six turns.

Now, look at the worst case scenario for the LoS.

Two paladins simultaneously charge it.

Two hammer of wrath, one glance or pen, maybe one hullpoint down.
Then the paladins attack, 8 attacks, 4 hits, 1 saved, meaning average hullpoints lost before the LoS gets to attack is ~7 even if they score an explodes result, it has a decent chance of survival.

Now the lord of skulls gets to swing, with it's 11 attacks, 5 on one, six on the other. That makes one dead knight and the other one may survive with two hullpoints left, if it doesn't die due to an explodes result. Even in this worst case scenario the LoS has a very decent chance of not only surviving the confrontation, but actually killing both attackers. Obviously rolling a six to start with the knights may swing things the other way (even with my houserule) but there is an equal chance of them doing nothing by rolling a one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the LoS is a walker. It honestly should be able to leave combat like a normal tracked vehicle.

Hmmmm, not a bad idea actually...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Point totals for tyranid mc's with the vdr
Monstrous bio-cannons
Twin linked death spitter: 5 points
Twin linked devourer with brain leech worms: 25
Stranglethorn cannon: 10
Heavy venom cannon: 15

Hive tyrant: 185
Swarm lord: same price but all units in range benefit from swarm leader
Old one eye: 140
Tervigon: 155
Haruspex: 120
Harpy: 150
Hive crone: 155
Carnifex: 85
Trygon: 170
Trygons prime: 205
Mawlock: 140
Exocrene: 105
Tyrannofex: 105 rupture cannon upgrade is 5 point upgrade.

It is crazy to actually see how disadvantaged most tyranid monsters are compared to things like talos, riptides, and wraithlords.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Two knight paladins 750 points
Fighting a lord of skulls on a 6x4 table

If they run, then the lord of skulls will cause 1 hullpoint of damage on average every turn. The two knights will do (if all blasts hit) maybe 2, if rounding up but every turn after the first the LoS will regenerate at least one hullpoint. Neither side will kill the other in six turns.

IWND is rolling once per vehicle on a 5+, not once per hullpoint.

Now, look at the worst case scenario for the LoS.

Isn't the worst case scenario the one where the LoS gets 12 BS5 melta shots to its back arc? Thats only 400pts worth of Crisis suits and pathfinders

Head-to-head comparisons are pretty silly. Yes, the LoS does well at taking out enemy superheavies in combat - thats what D-Weapons do well. You can NEVER say something is balanced due to a single head-to-head comparison because in this game of rock-scissors-paper there is always something that can take it out for less points.

But going with the Head-to-head comparison... 2 knights will (on average) kill the LoS before it swings:


8 attacks, 4 hits. 1/6 chance to do nothing. 4/6 chance to do (5/6 chance to do D3 HP, 1/6 chance to do D3+D3 HP) with 4/6 chance to get past the save, 1/6 chance to do 6+D6 HP with no save = 10.5 HP on average dice.

= 10.5 HP on average dice. Plus 0.9 HP from HoW, plus 1.5HP per turn from shooting. 13 HP (on average) on the turn they charge.

You're right on the hullpoint, and I said that if they rolled a six it would be over for the lord of skulls. That said, if they don't the lord of skulls has a decent chance of killing both of the imperial knights.

Those same melta crisis suits also drop 2/3 of the hullpoints off of a revenant titan on average rolls ( 10/12 hit, then half for holofields making 5 hits, those will pen rear armor on a 3+, I'm guessing melta range, so more than likely 5 pens that makes between 5 and 8 hullpoints) and the revenant in my vdr is 62 points more expensive. Not to mention that the Lord of skulls could wipe out the crisis suit in question with a single volley of the flamestorm template, or even just thunderblitz them, then cannon something else while preparing to charge another unit. The lord of skulls I presented above has mitigated the primary weakness of the normal version, and should pay the points for the damage it can do.

When comparing units, you compare like to like. So when you compare a mixed roll superheavy walker to something, it ahould be Nother mixed roll superheavy walker. Any other comparison doesn't work.

Just because grav exists doesn't mean the wraithknight is appropriately costed. Same with melta and superheavy vehicles. 400 points of dedicated antitank darn well better be able to drop most vehicles in the game. Otherwise what was the point in bringing them? Your hope is the opponent hasn't loaded up with so much of your counter to negate the validity of your list. 12 melta shots at the rear arc of the lord of skulls means the opponent dropped a unit of 6 suits behind the fastest melee unit in a melee centric army. Those crisis suits are dead guaranteed next turn, whether or not they killed the lord of skulls. What if there were maulerfiend, or hell brutes back there? Or a horde of blood letters to create a screen? Getting behind something like that is REALLY a lot harder than it seems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok, I was going over the lord of skulls again. You are right there are wasted points here, probably about 30-40 (which is a lot with the vdr. I will break down the unit tomorrow morning, but I think a really cool short range gaze attack, and maybe a bonus to initiative will bring his big treaded backside in line with his points. (I don't want to lower the points, because fluff, and I don't want to add anything that would invalidate the model. Hence eye lasers!)

See you tomorrow!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
You're right on the hullpoint, and I said that if they rolled a six it would be over for the lord of skulls. That said, if they don't the lord of skulls has a decent chance of killing both of the imperial knights.

Those same melta crisis suits also drop 2/3 of the hullpoints off of a revenant titan on average rolls ( 10/12 hit, then half for holofields making 5 hits, those will pen rear armor on a 3+, I'm guessing melta range, so more than likely 5 pens that makes between 5 and 8 hullpoints) and the revenant in my vdr is 62 points more expensive. Not to mention that the Lord of skulls could wipe out the crisis suit in question with a single volley of the flamestorm template, or even just thunderblitz them, then cannon something else while preparing to charge another unit. The lord of skulls I presented above has mitigated the primary weakness of the normal version, and should pay the points for the damage it can do.

When comparing units, you compare like to like. So when you compare a mixed roll superheavy walker to something, it ahould be Nother mixed roll superheavy walker. Any other comparison doesn't work.

Just because grav exists doesn't mean the wraithknight is appropriately costed. Same with melta and superheavy vehicles. 400 points of dedicated antitank darn well better be able to drop most vehicles in the game. Otherwise what was the point in bringing them? Your hope is the opponent hasn't loaded up with so much of your counter to negate the validity of your list. 12 melta shots at the rear arc of the lord of skulls means the opponent dropped a unit of 6 suits behind the fastest melee unit in a melee centric army. Those crisis suits are dead guaranteed next turn, whether or not they killed the lord of skulls. What if there were maulerfiend, or hell brutes back there? Or a horde of blood letters to create a screen? Getting behind something like that is REALLY a lot harder than it seems.

The Point
-------
Your head.



To make a valid comparison, you compare how two units performing the same typical role fare at performing that role. You don't pit the two directly against each other, especially if that's not the way they would typically play.

Also it seems rather silly and contrived to ignore 1/6 of the Knight's damage output to make your point. Though even doing 3+D3 HP on a 6 they still kill the LoS on average.

Ok, I really need to stop thinking some responders are using hyperbole when they tell me how off some things are. I'll work on that...

Khorne lord of skulls
Hullpoints: 190
Av: 70
Fleet: 5
Rage: 5
It will not die: 30
Daemon (5+ invul save): 57
Daemon forge: 10
4 sD ap1 A @ws4: 144
Fuelled by rage: 50
Gorestorm cannon: 30
Hades gattling cannon: 140
Total 731

157 points is HUGE! so first off the top, lets add
+1 init: 8 points
Add three more hullpoints: 75 ( plus the additional points for the invul save, another 23)
Add warp gaze (x2): 40
That (should) put him at 877, now add the ability to charge anything nearby and he is a fluffy, capable monster with the addition of...

A 24" strength 10 ap1 heavy two gaze attack
12 hullpoints
And init4

Decent survivability, massive damage potential, fluffy, and doesn't invalidate anything model wise. Better?

Infinitely. I also think it needs a WS increase as well, bit not necessarily.

The only thing it hits on a 5+ is ws9-10, and most things hit the big galoot on a 4+ as well. I can't imagine this thing being very finness oriented in regards to melee...

Lol very true. I was thinking more in terms of it hitting things, didn't really think about things hitting it.

I find it funny though the a giant superheavy with an axe the size of a bus has the same probability to hit a space marine as it does an imperial knight.

Sideways sweeps at ground level most likely. Half of the marines duck in time

The IK just ninjaflip out the way half the time too

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Two knight paladins 750 points
Fighting a lord of skulls on a 6x4 table

Again, this is an irrelevant comparison that has very little to do with balancing the two units.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Two knight paladins 750 points
Fighting a lord of skulls on a 6x4 table

Again, this is an irrelevant comparison that has very little to do with balancing the two units.

Did you read the last several posts?

No, he just wanted to give me a bit of the business. I expected it, it seems to be their primary means of communication

If by "their", you're referring to the several page of arguments, I'm part of that, too.

What does everyone think of the tyranid revamp for their monstrous creatures? As I said before, I decided to do the balancing of monsters based on the "robot" type monsters so that the nids and daemons wouldn't be outclassed by everything else out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:
If by "their", you're referring to the several page of arguments, I'm part of that, too.

No, just peregrine. You will give me grief, but you don't seem to keep at it when I decide to actually take your advice. :/

 Selym wrote:
Did you read the last several posts?

I read them, and nothing in those posts makes my criticism any less valid.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Selym wrote:
Did you read the last several posts?

I read them, and nothing in those posts makes my criticism any less valid.

Don't be obtuse, if you read the last several posts as you say you did you would see that I rectified the situation and realized my mistake.

As I said, you seem to have a desire to give people grief even if they no longer hold to whatever it is you are disagreeing with. Can we not let an argument go even when you weren't personally involved and it has already been rectified?

Finished up the statistical update today, including the new tau weapon systems. I didn't get the format changes done that I wanted, and I'm still working on the points for things like the ghostkeel's once per game "snapshot" protection but otherwise the system has all of the current rules in it.

Just giving a heads up

First post updated. What do you guys think?

(Be gentle )

Ok, got a few tweeks in mind (mostly cleanup and a couple minor adjustments, and putting in a point cost that somehow didn't show up...)

What do you guys have for me?

I'm a little confused about the VDR not allowing for the creation of a Leman Russ (of any variant, due to it being a medium tank which doesn't allow for AV 14), nor Tau Piranhas (Due to Tau vehicles not able to be Fast if they have an AV above 10).

I'm curious what your thought process for that is.

 Champion of Night wrote:
I'm a little confused about the VDR not allowing for the creation of a Leman Russ (of any variant, due to it being a medium tank which doesn't allow for AV 14), nor Tau Piranhas (Due to Tau vehicles not able to be Fast if they have an AV above 10).

I'm curious what your thought process for that is.

I always understood the Russ to be a heavy / main battle tank, and tanks based off the predator frame medium tanks.

But the Leman Russ only has 3 HP, so by his classification it's still a medium tank.

 Champion of Night wrote:
But the Leman Russ only has 3 HP, so by his classification it's still a medium tank.

Ah right, I get you.

The extra weapons allowed by the codex fall under the "codex specific upgrades" section of the vehicle upgrades. They get to pile on more weapons because the codex allows them to.

As for the piranhas, I thought they were av10 all around. I'll be sure to change that limitation in the next update

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The extra weapons allowed by the codex fall under the "codex specific upgrades" section of the vehicle upgrades. They get to pile on more weapons because the codex allows them to.

As for the piranhas, I thought they were av10 all around. I'll be sure to change that limitation in the next update

Yeah, they're 11 on the front ^_^

As for the Leman Russes, I'm referring to the fact that they're AV 14 on the front, but the maximum armor for a medium tank is only 13.

Edit: Also, How does Speed Loader affect Rapid Fire weapons?

Two shots at full range, 4 shots at half.

It's to allow people to make things like the bolt gun sponsons on the crusader.

I am considering eliminating the limits to av altogether. There are so many vehicles that are exceptions, and I did it originally to help keep people from making av14 all around small fast skimmers

Thanks for pointing that out. Had several bring up the inability to purchase enough weapons, thought that was where your discrepancy was as well

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Two shots at full range, 4 shots at half.

It's to allow people to make things like the bolt gun sponsons on the crusader.

I am considering eliminating the limits to av altogether. There are so many vehicles that are exceptions, and I did it originally to help keep people from making av14 all around small fast skimmers

Thanks for pointing that out. Had several bring up the inability to purchase enough weapons, thought that was where your discrepancy was as well

I think That would be a good idea. They will be making a fairly expensive skimmer with av14. I would however maybe limit av15. A skimmer with av15 just seems wrong. Av15 should be a rare bird imo. Not everything should have it or have access to it.

Av 15 is going to be limited to super huge formations as it is now, can't have that nonsense running rampant...

 NorseSig wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Two shots at full range, 4 shots at half.

It's to allow people to make things like the bolt gun sponsons on the crusader.

I am considering eliminating the limits to av altogether. There are so many vehicles that are exceptions, and I did it originally to help keep people from making av14 all around small fast skimmers

Thanks for pointing that out. Had several bring up the inability to purchase enough weapons, thought that was where your discrepancy was as well

I think That would be a good idea. They will be making a fairly expensive skimmer with av14. I would however maybe limit av15. A skimmer with av15 just seems wrong. Av15 should be a rare bird imo. Not everything should have it or have access to it.

It would serve to streamline everything to get rid of limits that have lots of exceptions like that but av 14 fast skimmers would be stupid. Maybe apply Av penalties according to unit type? so skimmers pay extra for more av and fast skimmer pay extra extra etc. that way, it could be possible but not really advisable because you would have to pay profusely out of a particular orifice for it.

Except there is an av 14 fast skimmer out there already. (Dark angels, I believe sammael)

Having something pay extra for protection isn't fair because skimmers already pay more for the benefit of being skimmers. Their armor value does nothing for them that it doesn't do for other vehicles.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except there is an av 14 fast skimmer out there already. (Dark angels, I believe sammael)

Having something pay extra for protection isn't fair because skimmers already pay more for the benefit of being skimmers. Their armor value does nothing for them that it doesn't do for other vehicles.

but (fast) skimmers already have stuff going for them that normal vehicles don't already have. Land raiders for instance are AV 14 all around, which makes them super tough transports. So they get to be tough and have reasonable dakka but are expensive and are normal tracked vehicles. Linearly points costing everything would cause the points gap between a normal vehicle with AV 14 all 'round and a skimmer with AV 14 all 'round to be smaller in proportion to the amount of hull points they have so when you get into land raider territory with 4 HP and more, the hypothetical AV 14 skimmer would displace normal vehicles with similar stats.

Also, sammael is a T5 3+ jetbike character.

He can upgrade to a super land speeder (I thought)

Also, the skimmer version of a land raider would be more expensive, just like a skimmer version of a rhino would be. If the model LOOK like it should be av14 and floats above the ground with giant engines on the back, then there is no reason to not allow someone to build it.

An av14 normal speed vehicle with 4hp is 120 points.

Making it a fast skimmer (with the next update to points) will put it at 155 points.

It gains extra speed, it gains the ability to trade shooting for defense (jink), and gets to ignore terrain. All for the price of an extra drop pod on the table.

 Powerfisting wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except there is an av 14 fast skimmer out there already. (Dark angels, I believe sammael)

Having something pay extra for protection isn't fair because skimmers already pay more for the benefit of being skimmers. Their armor value does nothing for them that it doesn't do for other vehicles.

but (fast) skimmers already have stuff going for them that normal vehicles don't already have. Land raiders for instance are AV 14 all around, which makes them super tough transports. So they get to be tough and have reasonable dakka but are expensive and are normal tracked vehicles. Linearly points costing everything would cause the points gap between a normal vehicle with AV 14 all 'round and a skimmer with AV 14 all 'round to be smaller in proportion to the amount of hull points they have so when you get into land raider territory with 4 HP and more, the hypothetical AV 14 skimmer would displace normal vehicles with similar stats.

Also, sammael is a T5 3+ jetbike character.

Land Raiders are also terrible.

Which is sad, because making them fast for 5 points more and placing the side sponsons weapons on top would make them pretty boss.

Edit: forgot to add why they would get a 5 point increase

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Which is sad, because making them fast for 5 points more and placing the side sponsons weapons on top would make them pretty boss.

Edit: forgot to add why they would get a 5 point increase

No, they'd still suck. Haywire and D exist, and the vehicle rules still exist. If they move, they only get two good shots, which is unacceptable for the price tag.

Martel732 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Which is sad, because making them fast for 5 points more and placing the side sponsons weapons on top would make them pretty boss.

Edit: forgot to add why they would get a 5 point increase

No, they'd still suck. Haywire and D exist, and the vehicle rules still exist. If they move, they only get two good shots, which is unacceptable for the price tag.

Which is why no one takes godhammers anymore, although I have seen a few lists with redeemers and crusaders,

Haywire is a threat to all vehicles, though, and with land raiders you're paying for protection against S7 or lower weapons on a fairly large transport. D weapons do exist and really have no place in normal 40k (or 40k at all, I'd argue), but it's there and if you want to play the game you have to be ready for them.

 McNinja wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Which is sad, because making them fast for 5 points more and placing the side sponsons weapons on top would make them pretty boss.

Edit: forgot to add why they would get a 5 point increase

No, they'd still suck. Haywire and D exist, and the vehicle rules still exist. If they move, they only get two good shots, which is unacceptable for the price tag.

Which is why no one takes godhammers anymore, although I have seen a few lists with redeemers and crusaders,

Haywire is a threat to all vehicles, though, and with land raiders you're paying for protection against S7 or lower weapons on a fairly large transport. D weapons do exist and really have no place in normal 40k (or 40k at all, I'd argue), but it's there and if you want to play the game you have to be ready for them.

I agree, land raiders just plain suck. The only ones that are any good are ones like the Achilles and the land raiders big brother the Spartan. Mostly because they are either immune to melta or can be made immune. The Achilles is also a thunderfire cannon with room for 2 tech marines and some servitors making it resilient. The spartan actually has really good transport capacity as well as some decent options. Both are probably a little too expensive compared to other options in those points values though. Land raiders themselves are lackijng in transport capacity and firepower and while their mobility is better than a squad of troops it still isn't that impressive.

 NorseSig wrote:

 McNinja wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Which is sad, because making them fast for 5 points more and placing the side sponsons weapons on top would make them pretty boss.

Edit: forgot to add why they would get a 5 point increase

No, they'd still suck. Haywire and D exist, and the vehicle rules still exist. If they move, they only get two good shots, which is unacceptable for the price tag.

Which is why no one takes godhammers anymore, although I have seen a few lists with redeemers and crusaders,

Haywire is a threat to all vehicles, though, and with land raiders you're paying for protection against S7 or lower weapons on a fairly large transport. D weapons do exist and really have no place in normal 40k (or 40k at all, I'd argue), but it's there and if you want to play the game you have to be ready for them.

I agree, land raiders just plain suck. The only ones that are any good are ones like the Achilles and the land raiders big brother the Spartan. Mostly because they are either immune to melta or can be made immune. The Achilles is also a thunderfire cannon with room for 2 tech marines and some servitors making it resilient. The spartan actually has really good transport capacity as well as some decent options. Both are probably a little too expensive compared to other options in those points values though. Land raiders themselves are lackijng in transport capacity and firepower and while their mobility is better than a squad of troops it still isn't that impressive.

If we could remove that transport capacity and just stick heavier weapons on it, that'd be great.

On another note, I whipped this thing up in a few minutes.
85 - AV13 all around
15 normal speed
110 Avenger gatling cannon
90 two sponson battle cannons

300 points for two battle cannons and 12 S6 AP3 rending shots at BS4. I'd take it. Alternatively, you could just put twin-linked grav cannons everywhere can call it a day.

The addition of escalating potency weapons to the game has made it interesting. The fact that strD appears to still be the price of str10+30 points (as it was priced in the old vdr) and haywire is only 10 points on most units makes them seem rediculously overpowered.

But what they are is a deterrent. Haywire does nothing if the enemy is, say, footdar. Or if the person you end up playing against is daemons or tyranid. Strength D is only really capable if the enemy happens to bring extremely durable units worthy of their attention.

Their existence is the reason why there is such a wide variety of lists in today's "meta". You can build a list to counter anything, all you opponent needs to do is not have what you built to take on.

It's the reason there is so much hate for eldar, tau, and to a certain extent space marines. These armies are able to field a large enough variety of units that specialise in taking down heavy (D, melta, or grav) or light targets, but are also able to field a filler group of mid threat weapons to mitigate the loss of preferred target. (Those weapons being multi-shot str6-7)

It makes it easier for those armies to deal with all threats outside of excessive overload lists utilising the " spam" of similar units with a singular durability quotient. (Bikes with shrouded, flyers, msu troops, etc.) These particular setups guarantee that at least some of the weapons fired at them will be inefficient.

If you drop the transport capacity on a landraider, that knocks 20-32 points off of them.(depending on the pattern)

Sorry about the delay in updates folks, holidays and making my own tabletop wargame have taken up my time lately.

Should have an update as of next week, and I rebuilt almost every vehicle and monster in the game using this system to see where they would stand if their creation methods were standardised. Should be fun!

Does anyone have any suggestions for changes/ additions they would like to see?

Sorry for the LONG, unplanned hiatus, but Version 4 of the Vehicle & Monstrous Creature Design Rules is up!

It's good to see you are still working on this

Definitely continuing with the project.

Part of my time was spent working on my own game system. It will include a similar unit building system in addition to having core armies available. I wanted to build a quick and easy game that would allow you to use whatever models you want and they will all be speaking the same language

That is an admirable goal.

The closest I've seen to that was Shockforce. It had it's own fiction and factions, but they provided all the math you needed to make your units and factions using whatever models you wanted.

I just looked it up, couldn't find too many specific rules but it appeared to be skirmish style and played as a board game.

Good to know what other games have done something similar!

Edit: I've had several people play playtesting it so far. I have the beta version comming out next week

Latest update posted! Not a huge one, but an update none the less.

Primary change is some point tweaks to weapons and a couple more suggested houserules.

All the work you put into this is appreciated.

Missed your previous comment. SHOCK FORCE was a cool little miniatures game that came out in the 90's. It was a great game, but the fluff depended on the Y2K bug, and Alliance dropped it from it's distribution network before anyone ever really got around to playing it. Aaron Overton, it's creator spun it off into the G.W.A.R. tabletop miniatures game, then SHOCKFORCE 2nd edition. Afterwards he intended to re-release it as WAR ENGINE, a universal tabletop miniatures game with no setting. That never happened, then he wanted to turn it into a fantasy game, then a WWII game, and then he just kind of fell off the map. Found a link to the last free version of War Engine HERE Didn't mean to take this thread off topic, but I was one of the play testers for SHOCKFORCE. I used to demo it at local gaming shops and even wrote a few conversion army lists for 40K armies in SHOCKFORCE for the games newsletter. I just get warm fuzzies thinking about that game.

Did you ever release the Beta Version of your game ? I'd love to check it out.

I can't see transport cost? Am i being blind?

And Orks are missing a few guns found in Raid on Castrel Novell, IA. Mainly supa-skortcha/supa-lobba/supa-kannon

Transport costs are listed in the special rules in the back of the vdr. (It is one point per model, plus an additional point for assault unless the vehicle is open topped) as for the ork weapons that are missing, I didn't have access to those, so couldn't add them...

If you PM their stats and listed cost to me I can add them to the next update!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Transport costs are listed in the special rules in the back of the vdr. (It is one point per model, plus an additional point for assault unless the vehicle is open topped) as for the ork weapons that are missing, I didn't have access to those, so couldn't add them...

If you PM their stats and listed cost to me I can add them to the next update!

Brill yeah, nice one!

Any other questions/ suggestions?

I've had this thing going a while, need fresh eyes to keep it from stagnating. Last round really helped me balance some things out. If you notice anything, let me know!

(I am actually thinking about creating different classifications of heavy weapons to limit the available upgrades to them. Should help keep the craziness to a minimum but I'm afraid of being too limiting...)

Supa skorcha: 25 points
Supa Lobba: 45 points
Supa cannon: 50 points

For bs 2, add 5 points to Lobba/cannon for grot bs

Some changes comming for necron vehicles in particular. Any of the weapons systems that currently occupy opposite sides of a vehicle will be purchased in pairs for a discounted price instead of buying two.

This should make necron vehicles slightly cheaper while limiting their ability to abuse the amount of shots they currently receive. They will still be more expensive than before, but not AS expensive as they are now.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Any other questions/ suggestions?

I've had this thing going a while, need fresh eyes to keep it from stagnating. Last round really helped me balance some things out. If you notice anything, let me know!

(I am actually thinking about creating different classifications of heavy weapons to limit the available upgrades to them. Should help keep the craziness to a minimum but I'm afraid of being too limiting...)

The Chaos weapon list seems to have Doom Siren and Blastmaster but /not/ Sonic Blaster.

Also, if I wanted to upgrade the sonic blaster or missile launcher which are already two profile weapons, say to make a Knight Titan sized Blastmaster...... how would you reccomend making the numbers work?

I would say any upgrades to their strength, blast radius etc would simply be multiplied as normal.

So, if you wanted the blast master blast to be large blast str10 ap1 then you would take the blast upgrade and take "mega" twice. It would apply to all of the profiles, so the non-blast would become blast and everything would be at +2 strength and ap.

Just stumbled on this and it looks awesome. Any chance of adding 30k? There is so much scope for creating fluffy vehicles in that era because of the sheer amount of different patterns in use at the time including a great many that have now been lost to antiquity.

Thanks! I wouldn't be opposed to 30k, but I am not sure how easily I could get ahold of the rules for their vehicles etc...

I am currently focusing on my own game now, but this project is still being updated. Really all I am waiting for is to have enough changes/options to give it an update. Right now all I have are a couple new weapons point totals...