Now that we have our first 2 codex's of 9th out id like to go over points values again to see if we can get an exact idea of what GW values a specific stat line at.
Note im not trying to post exact point values of weapons and such as that wouldnt be good; just comparing basic statlines and points differences.
Marines being the poster boy vs a humble necron warrior would be a good start. Then we will compare the cheapest 2 models (imperial guardsman and Termagaunt), which havent yet been updated.
The Marine itself has always been the baseline for averages in the game. with a 3+ to hit, a S and T stat of 4, basic movement/initiative, decent LD, Attack of 1, 3+ Sv, and a new boosted W stat of 2.
The warrior has fairly similar statline only having 1 less wound and Sv, but gaining Ld.
Obviously Ld is not as valuable as 16.5% better chance to take no damage and double the health. How do their points compare?
We wont put any value on Ressurection protocols as that is an army-wide trait, and as such is countered by Chapter tactics and Doctrines.
Do these points values seem balanced?
Next we look at the cheapest profiles and see how the current pricing is not in fact fair. This was just a quick stop-gap change to start the edition and we should see changes when the respective 9th edition codex's come out.
The humble guardsman has a WS and BS of 4+, a S and T value of 3, standard movement, 1 W and A, a 5+ Sv, and a Ld of 6.
A hormagaunt meanwhile has only a 6+ Sv, and a Ld of 5, however it can be taken in a much larger unit size of 30 models.
Once again, I wont compare any army-wide rules or weapons (as i feel weapons should be pointed seperately and balanced on their own merit).
Does the ability to take a larger unit size factor into unit costs? Apparently GW believe that to be the case.
Is there anything you feel I have left out of my comparisons and what are your opinions on the current value system at GW?
SemperMortis wrote: You left out Comparing the guardsman to grots who are even worse than the gaunt
In a vacuum Guardsmen are better, its just Gaunts has more support via other units, stratagems, traits, etc.. Guardsmen when taking equal points and no support other than base 2 HQ's will destroy the gaunts. Guardsmen are right on the edge of being good other than cheap chaff with just a couple extra rules to support them.
And that is why I brought it up The only useful thing left to grotz right now is "grot shield" which is a CP strat which kills them to save 1 unit per turn on a 2+. Other than that they are WS5+ BS4+, T2, S2, 6+ save and I believe leadership 4. And can only equip a single S3 pistol.
There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.
Points are a complex issue, because in terms of the game, absolutely nothing exists in a vacuum.
For instance? People might look at my preferred Gauss Reapers and think “ooooooh crikey! That’s a bit ‘ard” when comparing to their own basic infantry weapons.
But, it has to be considered on the wider plane. Sure, it may be that my Troops are undercosted, compared to specific units.
Yet, when looked at in the wider vacuum of my own Codex? Maybe not so much, if my other preferred choices are solid point sinks.
I don't think you can do this. Its clear the points are not remotely based on "this is the base, add X for extra WS, Y for extra toughness" etc.
Marines are a meta skew. Unfortunately Intercessors etc make low AP damage 1 weapons awful. The end, full stop. Necron Warriors with RP *lose* about 33% more from damage 1 weapons than Tactical Marines do.
In theory this is kept in check by D2 weapons - against say S5 AP-3 D2 the Marines take just under twice as much damage as a necron warrior with RP - but for many factions D2 has been nerfed because Marines were bad in 2018 sad face and this hasn't shaken out because CA9th edition was a hatchet job.
The Necron codex expanded the amount of D2 - and I suspect we'll see that in all future codexes, which may make the meta a bit more hostile to Marines than it is today.
Xenomancers wrote: There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.
The problem with this explanation is that if you figure existing with a trash S3 weapon is worth 5pts, then we can only conclude that giving that gun twice the shots and longer range is free, and giving its bearer a better save and combat ability is also free, because somehow Guardsmen are costed the same as Grots.
There are a lot of game systems that include abstract factors like activation economy, objective-holding, and move-blocking into their unit costs, but that just changes the baseline for the scale. 40K's scale at the low end still doesn't make sense.
I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.
Bitharne wrote: I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.
Not really, 10 grots are 50 points. A few months ago 50 points meant 16 gretchins (and 2 spared points) which were way better than 10 grots with the new moral rules. Not to mention that the most important role for grots was to provide CPs and now are completely useless for that.
I would probably have paid 4-5ppm for gretchins in 8th edition, even for loads of them, but I'm not willing to pay more than 3ppm for them in 9th. They really don't worth more than 3ppm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.
By this logic a primaris (T4 2W) should be 25ish base + weapons. 30 points intercessors? Probably even 35 if a S3 pistol is worth 1-2 points.
Gravis dudes could easily be 45ish +weapons. 70-80ppm eradicators?
Eihnlazer wrote: They definately did not do the low end justice.
If the head design guy said "hey, jack all the trash up to 5pts base" i'd understand.
Thats not all they did though. If your pointing grots at 5pts, its pretty obvious a guardsman is at least 2pts better.
Then if your guardsmen are 7pts, marines probably need to be at least 21pts apiece stock.
They probably felt that was biting into their bottom line too much.....
Gretchin at 5 pts was not a decision made to properly price the unit's potential, it's an effort to keep a unit that has gotten way more spotlight in 8th that intended off the board. GW doesn't want orks to bring hordes of gretchin to the table, they are supposed to bring boyz and maybe a unit of gretchin or two to compliment them. They don't want a horde of gretchin blocking off half the battlefield with their presence and win by not playing the game - which they could have done even better with the new moral rules.
On the other hand GW actually does want rows of guardsmen standing in front of tanks and artillery and squads hunkering down on objectives.
For the very same reason cultists got multiple kicks in the nuts and scouts got moved to elite, while guardsmen remained unchanged.
So there really is no point in comparing these units globally, when the decision - no matter how heavy-handed it was - has been made for internal balance reasons.
Bitharne wrote: I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.
Guy with 3000+ points of grot units here, 1000 of which are grots: No, they are not.
The fact that grots are t2 and have no sv means you rarely if ever have to take a morale test with a 10-man of grots.
There's no in-game job that isn't better performed by a squad of boyz (screening, blocking, etc) or a Mek (Actions, objective holding) that grots can do. They're just a whoopsie. Maybe in 2022 when GW is done getting thru the marines GW will finally corrrect them down to 3ppm or 4ppm with stat improvements (maybe just give 'em -1 to hit when you're not using Blast weapons because they're small and cowardly, something like that, or make Grot Shields more of a Tau Drone ability than a stratagem that goes off on a 4+).
GW will not mail marine fans cookies if they defend GW's dumb decision making regarding grots.
I'm not even sure why points needed to change between editions in the first place.
Surely they could have waited for each army to get its book? Or at least have waited a few months to see if anything was over-/under-performing as a result of the new rules?
vipoid wrote: I'm not even sure why points needed to change between editions in the first place.
Surely they could have waited for each army to get its book? Or at least have waited a few months to see if anything was over-/under-performing as a result of the new rules?
...Because some things (non-FLY vehicles) were going to be obviously stronger and others (shooty FLY based non-vehicles) that were going to be obviously weaker?
vipoid wrote: I'm not even sure why points needed to change between editions in the first place.
Surely they could have waited for each army to get its book? Or at least have waited a few months to see if anything was over-/under-performing as a result of the new rules?
...Because some things (non-FLY vehicles) were going to be obviously stronger and others (shooty FLY based non-vehicles) that were going to be obviously weaker?
vipoid wrote: I'm not even sure why points needed to change between editions in the first place.
Surely they could have waited for each army to get its book? Or at least have waited a few months to see if anything was over-/under-performing as a result of the new rules?
...Because some things (non-FLY vehicles) were going to be obviously stronger and others (shooty FLY based non-vehicles) that were going to be obviously weaker?
Eh?
The edition change incorporated new rules that changed the value of existing units and weapons. Vehicles got the ability to shoot into combat, Fly units lost the ability to fall back and still shoot, and Blast is now a thing. Leaving points unchanged wouldn't account for those. It also wouldn't account for the general push to reduce the size of the game with that ~20% increase across the board.
I think it was the right call to redo points, but those changes not taking any of the balance resolutions from CA19 into account was... questionable.
vipoid wrote: I'm not even sure why points needed to change between editions in the first place.
Surely they could have waited for each army to get its book? Or at least have waited a few months to see if anything was over-/under-performing as a result of the new rules?
...Because some things (non-FLY vehicles) were going to be obviously stronger and others (shooty FLY based non-vehicles) that were going to be obviously weaker?
Eh?
The edition change incorporated new rules that changed the value of existing units and weapons. Vehicles got the ability to shoot into combat, Fly units lost the ability to fall back and still shoot, and Blast is now a thing. Leaving points unchanged wouldn't account for those. It also wouldn't account for the general push to reduce the size of the game with that ~20% increase across the board.
I think it was the right call to redo points, but those changes not taking any of the balance resolutions from CA19 into account was... questionable.
Okay, perhaps I should have phrased things better.
I don't see why *every* unit needed to change in price. Especially with, as you say, absolutely no regard for the most recent CA.
I mean, you say that things needed to go up in points by 20% but there clearly wasn't any such universal increase. Some units were barely changed while others went up by as much as 50%, with apparently no regard for whether they'd gained any meaningful benefit from the change or indeed whether they were even doing well before then.
What's more, there was no longer any attempt at balancing wargear costs. So whereas before some decent progress was made in making less useful equipment significantly cheaper, now everything just costs the same. Should I equip my Haemonculus with an Agoniser or a weapon with the same stats and ability but better damage? Before, the latter cost twice as much. Now it costs exactly the same. Boy, what a deep and meaningful choice. Previously, I was willing to take Grenade Launchers on IG squads when they cost just 3pts, compared to 7pts for a Plasmagun. Now both are 5pts. Again, I do wonder which one I'll take.
I think a rebalance taking into account the new universal rules - and perhaps some of the rules changes they knew were to come - would have made some sense.
I'm not convinced however the points update did that.
I'm really not convinced I'm enjoying having 100-200 points less on the table, but some people might be.
Tyel wrote: I think a rebalance taking into account the new universal rules - and perhaps some of the rules changes they knew were to come - would have made some sense.
I'm not convinced however the points update did that.
I'm really not convinced I'm enjoying having 100-200 points less on the table, but some people might be.
The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
It seems like a more sensible approach would have been to double the cost of everything and go from there. Even if there's no immediate change in game size (just make 4000pts the new normal), there would be much more design space to work with for cheaper units/wargear.
Castozor wrote: The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
Nope not arbitrary just GW has a perspective how X faction should look and play. respectively the writer for a specific dex and then enforces this via the pts / pl value.
You can see that with Cultists aswell.
Castozor wrote: The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
Nope not arbitrary just GW has a perspective how X faction should look and play. respectively the writer for a specific dex and then enforces this via the pts / pl value.
You can see that with Cultists aswell.
Your argument is Gw's rules writers don't want to see Killa Kanz on the table?
GW puts killa kanz in basically every piece of art and ork army photo, they love those ding dang things...
Castozor wrote: The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
Nope not arbitrary just GW has a perspective how X faction should look and play. respectively the writer for a specific dex and then enforces this via the pts / pl value.
You can see that with Cultists aswell.
That would make sense for grots, but not killa kans. It's like the people who did 9th edition points didn't even communicate with the ones who did CA2019. For my DG, Crawlers got a hefty increase, but MBH actually got a small decrease, balance wise this might make some sense but fluffwise, why would a DG army value one Daemon engine over another?
Castozor wrote: The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
Nope not arbitrary just GW has a perspective how X faction should look and play. respectively the writer for a specific dex and then enforces this via the pts / pl value.
You can see that with Cultists aswell.
Your argument is Gw's rules writers don't want to see Killa Kanz on the table?
GW puts killa kanz in basically every piece of art and ork army photo, they love those ding dang things...
No my argument is that GW attempts to enforce that picture and playstyle...
GW just sucks at it.. hence why you will in the fututre still see most CSM armies rellying upon cultists instead of CSM because the later actively gimp your list..
Castozor wrote: The points update seems completely arbitrary in many cases. Another Ork example would be Killa Kans who in the latest CA went from Trash to at least usable in normal games if you want to try them. Then in comes 9th and BOOM back to trash status.
Nope not arbitrary just GW has a perspective how X faction should look and play. respectively the writer for a specific dex and then enforces this via the pts / pl value.
You can see that with Cultists aswell.
Your argument is Gw's rules writers don't want to see Killa Kanz on the table?
GW puts killa kanz in basically every piece of art and ork army photo, they love those ding dang things...
No my argument is that GW attempts to enforce that picture and playstyle...
GW just sucks at it.. hence why you will in the fututre still see most CSM armies rellying upon cultists instead of CSM because the later actively gimp your list..
I mean, give them the same points and wound bump that regular astartes got and I do not think they do. 5mans with a reaper or heavy bolter with w2 at 17ppm seem like they would kick ass.
Bitharne wrote: I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.
Not really, 10 grots are 50 points. A few months ago 50 points meant 16 gretchins (and 2 spared points) which were way better than 10 grots with the new moral rules. Not to mention that the most important role for grots was to provide CPs and now are completely useless for that.
I would probably have paid 4-5ppm for gretchins in 8th edition, even for loads of them, but I'm not willing to pay more than 3ppm for them in 9th. They really don't worth more than 3ppm.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.
By this logic a primaris (T4 2W) should be 25ish base + weapons. 30 points intercessors? Probably even 35 if a S3 pistol is worth 1-2 points.
Gravis dudes could easily be 45ish +weapons. 70-80ppm eradicators?
How did you come to those numbers.
IMO the value of the first wound is the highest. Basically like your first wound costs you 5 points but your second wound might only cost 2 or 3 and each additional wound you put on a single model has less and less value...though should scale in cost based on T and SV values.
Example.
Grot
Base 4 points and has the weakest possible weapon. (4x"1"{this is where additional wounds get pointed with a scaling downward from the first wound})(1){T and save values} +1{this is weapon cost also melee attacks}. =5
A space marine is something like this.
(4x2)(2)+2(bolt gun) = 18
A custodian is something like this
(4x4)(3)+6 = 54
I mean...theoretically this is how points should be figured. Because it scales the values for durability. You still have to ballpark the cost of the weapon and such but I literally just guessed what at these values for the custodian and marine and came out on the mark both times. I am sure GW does something similar to find the starting cost for things.
(4x10)(4)+80 = 240 Gladiator tank (weapon options put it in the ball park) T8 3+ is a 4x modifier to wounds
Redemptor dread T7 3+ s a 3x modifier
(4x11)(3)+50 =182 (I think these are 185.
Something like a kabalite.
(4x1)(1)+3(also use this section to add for move speed and special abilties) = 7
Dire Avenger
(4x1)(2)+4 = 12
Not saying it's perfect but this is a good means to break a units "value down" when evaluating and comparing units. BS and WS just get factored into the part where you par for weapons. You pay less for weapons that hit less.
Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.
For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.
There's no way to directly compare individual units, as you have to consider their surroundings. You may as well compare makes of tyres to see which has the best grip, but without specifying which car they go on. The ferrari driver thinks a chunky off-road tyre is useless; a landrover owner thinks the same of slicks.
You have to compare armies as a whole. One wound means more than another if:
-It's on a model with high toughness
-it's on a mode with a god save or invulns
-it's being added to a model with few wounds - one more wound on a stompa is irrelevant, whilst one more wound on a marine is a massive change
-it's on a good, all-purpose model (or chassis) which will be used for many battlefield roles (EG, giving marines 1 extra wound each is huge because there's lots of them in many roles, whilst giving obliterators an extra wound wouldn't be so big, as they are much more limited in their use).
-it's in an army which can recover wounds more easily, such as tyranids
(Oddly enough ,with reanimation protocols being done by the amount of wounds, I suspect necrons would dislike getting 2 wounds).
-it's on a unit which can take a lot of models - 10 marines having 20 wounds is one thing, but 30 orks having 60 wounds is another.
-how effectively the unit can get engaged - 20 rk boys with 2 wounds each isn't too scary, but they are the only army with easy access to a transport capacity of 20 - suddenly double-wound boys charging from a big tank with no time for the enemy to whittle them down, it becomes more effective.
-access to fnp aruas - back to orks, the painboy suddenly goes up in value now that there are twice as many pains to not feel.
There is no points per wound, it just doesn't work like that.
Yes, three wounds is the biggest step up probably, but 2W is quite valuable vs throwaway fire and mortal wounds. This is why oldboi DC are nuts with 2W.
vipoid wrote: Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.
For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.
What you are speaking about is efficiencies. 3 Wounds is a good stat to have because of the abundance of d2 weapons. you have to attack that from the rules writting side of things...maybe you shouldn't make so many d2 weapons? Maybe they should cost more? In general in any system there is going to be a most efficient option. A smart design team figures that out and just makes sure that all armies have decent access to that option or are compensated in other ways.
SecondTime wrote: Now we need far more D2 weapons than before, though.
Needs to be a balance. In fact - if you are paying for durability but it doesn't give you anything because it is always ignored. Thats a lot worse than having to deal two wounds with a weapon you paid to deal one wound at a time for.
SecondTime wrote: Now we need far more D2 weapons than before, though.
Needs to be a balance. In fact - if you are paying for durability but it doesn't give you anything because it is always ignored. Thats a lot worse than having to deal two wounds with a weapon you paid to deal one wound at a time for.
Depends on the cost of the weapons you are forcing them to take I guess. Those weapons are pretty poor vs dreads, I might add. But balance is clearly too much to ask.
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
Tyel wrote: Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
Yeah, it also gets compounded by the fact that in the competitive meta currently, whatever 36% of people are bringing SM, and 19% of people are bringing custodes. The odds now of running into a list that isn't a W2/W3 only skew list are vanishingly small.
...Which is exactly why the countermeta lists we are seeing have all been basically massive antimarine skew. When you're running into over half the playerbase bringing the same sort of defensive band, obviously that's the kind of countermeta list you'll be running against them.
Tyel wrote: Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.
Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.
This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.
Tyel wrote: Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.
Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.
This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.
Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.
Tyel wrote: Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.
Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.
This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.
Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.
I was suggesting a formula for what they should cost...which is like 7ish. I'd probably give them a minior tweek to give 6's to wound are AP-1 too. The maths are theoretical - they can't be wrong.
Tyel wrote: Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.
You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".
What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.
Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.
This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.
Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.
I was suggesting a formula for what they should cost...which is like 7ish. I'd probably give them a minior tweek to give 6's to wound are AP-1 too. The maths are theoretical - they can't be wrong.
Yes. Yes they can.
Moreover, Xeno, not winning with Marines doesn’t necessarily mean Marines are bad. It could be that you’re facing new more skilled opponents.
40k is certainly not a pure skill game, but there is SOME skill involved.
Ice_can wrote: Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.
You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.
Ice_can wrote: Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.
You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.
That's NOT what I said your maths even adding in I think unfair points for meaninglessness values shows Kabalites are heavily overcosted as per CA2020. You justified them at 7 points each and said see the math works yet Kabalites are 9 points each.
Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Today I learned that Xenomancers has never heard of Garbage In, Garbage Out. (As for how GW arrives at their points, it isn't math. I guarantee it.)
I literally just came up with it.
Heres a baneblade for you.
(4x20)(4) =320 +40 for a demo cannon and 80 for a baneblade cannon +2 HB = 460. I think that's their exact points? I could be wrong been a while since I took once and my BSc is freaking out.
Try my formula with literally anything. It is going to be close. I am sure they don't use this exact formula but it also goes to show how easy it would be to make a formula to assign points to units.
Ice_can wrote: Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.
You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.
That's NOT what I said your maths even adding in I think unfair points for meaninglessness values shows Kabalites are heavily overcosted as per CA2020. You justified them at 7 points each and said see the math works yet Kabalites are 9 points each.
Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.
Oh well I can explain that. A khab used to be 6 points before they were raised in points for no apparent reason. So yeah I agree - they are overcosted. This formula proves objectively they are overcosted. I even stated I would buff their weapon a bit at 7 points.
By this logic a primaris (T4 2W) should be 25ish base + weapons. 30 points intercessors? Probably even 35 if a S3 pistol is worth 1-2 points.
Gravis dudes could easily be 45ish +weapons. 70-80ppm eradicators?
That would go a long way to making the tables feel bigger for a 2000 pt game.
Next steps would be cut movement especially infantry, cut ranges, standardize charges to 2x base move minus terrain mods, ...make vehicles super pricey too.
In short, modernized 2nd Ed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Systematic points would involve a base profile costing base points with profile mods increasing or decreasing further mods then these should modify base wargear costs and all this should be weighted by faction character and so on... probably not a simple calculation.
Xenomancers wrote: (4x20)(4) =320 +40 for a demo cannon and 80 for a baneblade cannon +2 HB = 460. I think that's their exact points? I could be wrong been a while since I took once and my BSc is freaking out.
Try my formula with literally anything. It is going to be close. I am sure they don't use this exact formula but it also goes to show how easy it would be to make a formula to assign points to units.
Baneblades are 470, and you forgot the autocannon (which is more than 10 pts).
This formula is just 4*wounds*random number+random number. Yes, by jigging the random numbers you can essentially do whatever you like - but this isn't proving anything.
Bitharne wrote: I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.
Because they aren't better with the new morale rules. Nobody took grotz in 8th for any other reasons than Grot shields and CP batteries. 30pts got you 10 ablative wounds for a loota bomb or other useful infantry unit. Now, the same # of ablative wounds is 50pts (up 66%) and the lootas went up in price as well as losing access to mob up and really, nobody wants to take them as "Bad moonz" to get double shoot anymore when it gimps the rest of your list dramatically. And in 8th, if you killed grotz, nobody cared about losing 2-3 or hell 5 to morale because it was between 3-15pts lost. Now, if you lose 1 grot to morale its 5pts and if you fail 1 or even 2 tests poof, right back up to 15pts lost which was the high end for 8th edition losses. Plus, if grotz were dying, that meant someone was wasting shots on a 3pt model, I call that a win, now, its a 5pt model that does almost nothing on the battlefield except exist.
Xenomancers wrote: There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.
So Grotz existing are the same value as Guardsmen existing... really want to make that your argument? Grotz went up 66% in price between 8th and 9th edition, as of right now, they gained nothing for it. Your argument is BS from the very start, the value of 5 was just a randomly selected minimum value GW came up with to keep hordes from dominating the meta. an IG player can take 60 guardsmen at 5ppm, Orkz can take 180 grotz at 5ppm, but if an ork player does this, he just spent about half his army points on a unit that is functionally useless. So GW is pricing grotz high to keep ork players from filling the board with garbage infantry and win the game by simply having more models than can be killed in a short period of time. Especially when teamed with the recent development of half hte game having 2+ wounds.
vipoid wrote: Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.
For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.
And also having 3 wounds flips you from having a 2/3 chance to die from d3 damage to a 1/3 chance.
To that end, I'd say:
1W = x
2W = 1.75x
3W = 2.5x
Where x is the base cost of a wound. So the basic formula would be [(X-1 Wounds x 0.75)+1]
Multiple damage weapons invariably reduce the overall improvement of a wound.
So lets assume x is 4 points.
A Guardsman has T3, 5+ and Ld7, lets say all his special rules and gear cost 1 point.
Now we can use T3 5+ Ld7 as a baseline for 4pts. This of course means higher Toughness and better saves should multiply the wound cost, as well as Leadership having a minor factor for determining fractions (rounding up or down).
Baseline Toughness increases by 40% per 1 value Higher/Lower. Armour Saves increase the cost by 25%, 50%, 100% (4+, 3+, 2+), or reduce it by -25%, -50% (6+, 7+).
Additional special rules should have their own cost. Deep Strike, Orders, Stratagems, Doctrines, Acts of Faith, Unique rules, etc. These would all add up to be worth a few points on their own.
So lets say T4 = a 40% increase, and a 3+ is a 50% increase. So 4 x 1.9 = 7.8 Now take the higher Leadership of 8 and use that to argue balancing the cost to 8 points.
This in turn means we can apply the following to an Intercessor: 8 points base per wound, multiplied by 1.75 to get an overall wound cost of 14 points. The remainder of his 18 points can be assumed to be his weapons and special rules.
How about a Tempestus Scion? The only change is a 4+ save, so thats a +25% increase, to get 4 x 1.25 = 5pts. Now the Scions come with a plethora of special rules allowing them to be extremely flexible. This should justify the remaining 4 points.
This becomes undone when you reach Vehicles which can throw out the maths completely. I suppose adding additional clauses for the presence of VEHICLE or MONSTER keywords could work.
I would take grats in my marine list for 5 points each just for the board control they offer.
However if you only care about killing in 9th I can see your point.
Board control wins games. That alone puts values on wounds that can’t be reliably quantified. Grits at 2-3 points wou,d be able to blanket the board and basically win via sheer attrition.
You wouldn't be taking grots in your marine lists if you also had boyz for 3 more points. Orks also don't have the insane shooting of marines to compensate for taking units which do literally nothing.
Not really, it’s job is to sit there and score points or prevent deep strike.
If you are still thinking like it’s 8th edition then not much I can say. If my opponent using a their long range or barrage to take out Gretchen? (If they even have it) then they have more than made up their points.
Most likely however they are not going to bother and they will be free to sit there in peace being “worthless” hell most likely I would spend one cp to have them get me deploy scramblerss.
Well, it's nothing new that marine players do not understand how orks work, and frankly I'm tired of explaining.
And yes, players WILL bother with your gretchin, because they can just throw random intercessor grenades, hull weapons and whatever units are in range and wipe them out with no trouble whatsoever, which leaves you with no backfield protection and no units sitting on objectives. You don't need "long range or barrage" to take them out. A single dedicated marine unit can clear 100 points of gretchin per turn. There is a reason why they appear in none of the tournament lists - they don't perform the task of "sitting there and scoring points" well enough to be worth 50 points.
A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Ok,,, so before the two models get over to the objective ? what about any actions the model is doing ? what about blocking charge lanes, what about being a tarpit ? ... lol ... your defining active impact as damage output or ability to remove other units... so ya,, you don't have to say it, its what your describing XD.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Ok,,, so before the two models get over to the objective ? what about any actions the model is doing ? what about blocking charge lanes, what about being a tarpit ? ... lol ... your defining active impact as damage output or ability to remove other units... so ya,, you don't have to say it, its what your describing XD.
Let's say the unit is basically a drop pod with no Deep Strike or Transport capacity. It's a vehicle (so no actions, as far as I'm aware), it's not a troop (so no ObSec), it can't move (so it can't go to block charges or anything-unless you deploy it in front of your own units, blocking their moves as well), it can't charge, it cannot attack in melee and has no guns.
But it's got 30 wounds at T8 2++/2+++. Is that a valuable unit?
JNAProductions wrote: Let's say the unit is basically a drop pod with no Deep Strike or Transport capacity. It's a vehicle (so no actions, as far as I'm aware), it's not a troop (so no ObSec), it can't move (so it can't go to block charges or anything-unless you deploy it in front of your own units, blocking their moves as well), it can't charge, it cannot attack in melee and has no guns.
But it's got 30 wounds at T8 2++/2+++. Is that a valuable unit?
I would not take that unit in any army of mine because it offers nothing.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Ok,,, so before the two models get over to the objective ? what about any actions the model is doing ? what about blocking charge lanes, what about being a tarpit ? ... lol ... your defining active impact as damage output or ability to remove other units... so ya,, you don't have to say it, its what your describing XD.
Let's say the unit is basically a drop pod with no Deep Strike or Transport capacity. It's a vehicle (so no actions, as far as I'm aware), it's not a troop (so no ObSec), it can't move (so it can't go to block charges or anything-unless you deploy it in front of your own units, blocking their moves as well), it can't charge, it cannot attack in melee and has no guns.
But it's got 30 wounds at T8 2++/2+++. Is that a valuable unit?
XD lol, yes, if you remove even basic stats like movement or its ability to do actions, then yes its useless.
But of course it is you just made the following argument :
"Well, what if it can't do anything ? is it still valuable then ?"
Well, obviously not XD lol.
and even then, it still has the ability to capture an objective in your deployment zone until the opposing player dedicates resources to stop that... so EVEN then it has some miniscule value.
JNAProductions wrote: But it has wounds. It takes up space. That's technically something of value.
Type40 wrote: and even then, it still has the ability to capture an objective in your deployment zone until the opposing player dedicates resources to stop that... so EVEN then it has some miniscule value.
Type40 wrote: I dont know. How fluffy does it seem ?
Your talking to the guy actively makes lists with webway gates XD lol.
How many points would you pay for it, based on its tabletop performance? Assume you're trying your darndest to win a game.
Unless you're saying you'd take Dark Reapers, Dire Avengers, and Guardians all at 50 PPM because "They're a dying race, and each life is equally valuable!"
Type40 wrote: I dont know. How fluffy does it seem ?
Your talking to the guy actively makes lists with webway gates XD lol.
How many points would you pay for it, based on its tabletop performance? Assume you're trying your darndest to win a game.
Unless you're saying you'd take Dark Reapers, Dire Avengers, and Guardians all at 50 PPM because "They're a dying race, and each life is equally valuable!"
If I knew I would have a bunch of shooty characters and I knew I would have an ojbective in my deployment zone. then I would pay more then I pay for a webway gate... those can't even be deployed on an objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
Type40 wrote: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
his point is to provide a unit with nearly infinite wounds and ask you how much it is worth if all it has is wounds. And don't worry about putting it on an objective - a single enemy model takes that objective away without having to touch this abomination.
Type40 wrote: I dont know. How fluffy does it seem ?
Your talking to the guy actively makes lists with webway gates XD lol.
How many points would you pay for it, based on its tabletop performance? Assume you're trying your darndest to win a game.
Unless you're saying you'd take Dark Reapers, Dire Avengers, and Guardians all at 50 PPM because "They're a dying race, and each life is equally valuable!"
If I knew I would have a bunch of shooty characters and I knew I would have an ojbective in my deployment zone. then I would pay more then I pay for a webway gate... those can't even be deployed on an objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
Then give me an approximate. Is it worth around what a Dire Avenger is worth?
A Dark Reaper?
A Wave Serpent?
A Wraithknight?
Type40 wrote: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
his point is to provide a unit with nearly infinite wounds and ask you how much it is worth if all it has is wounds. And don't worry about putting it on an objective - a single enemy model takes that objective away without having to touch this abomination.
Yes,, so it forces an opponent to dedicate "a single enemy unit" to it "without having to touch this abomination."
and it provides a unshiftable Look Out Sir rock... there is inherent value in that no ?
Its not worth 0 points,
Wounds on their own have some inherent value, I am not going to try and work out what that is... all I am saying is that it IS something. Are we really going to try and argue that it is absolutely nothing ?
Type40 wrote: I dont know. How fluffy does it seem ?
Your talking to the guy actively makes lists with webway gates XD lol.
How many points would you pay for it, based on its tabletop performance? Assume you're trying your darndest to win a game.
Unless you're saying you'd take Dark Reapers, Dire Avengers, and Guardians all at 50 PPM because "They're a dying race, and each life is equally valuable!"
If I knew I would have a bunch of shooty characters and I knew I would have an ojbective in my deployment zone. then I would pay more then I pay for a webway gate... those can't even be deployed on an objective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
Then give me an approximate. Is it worth around what a Dire Avenger is worth?
A Dark Reaper?
A Wave Serpent?
A Wraithknight?
And what if it was T1 7+ instead of T8 2++/2+++?
lol ya, the less stats you give the thing the less value it has... I don't understand what your point is XD.
What if we it was T1 7+ 1w ,,, sure even less value ... but again, there is some inherent value there. XD ... lol what is your point XD ? You still have something that you can use to force your opponent to dedicate resources too.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Ok,,, so before the two models get over to the objective ? what about any actions the model is doing ? what about blocking charge lanes, what about being a tarpit ? ... lol ... your defining active impact as damage output or ability to remove other units... so ya,, you don't have to say it, its what your describing XD.
You are right, but what he is trying to say minus the hyperbole is correct as well. Wounds are more or less valuable depending on what a unit can do, how fast it can move and even how much space it can take up.
In essence, points per wounds are by no means a thing you can just calculate from a formula. Even if you compare extremely similar units - let's say an Assault Terminator, a Deathshroud Terminator, a Mega Nob and a Deathwing Knight - the value of an extra wound on each of them varies wildly for multiple reasons, many of which cannot be easily converted into numbers.
Type40 wrote: Yes,, so it forces an opponent to dedicate "a single enemy unit" to it "without having to touch this abomination."
A single model - so like, a stray daemonette while the other 29 in the unit are in combat with something. Or like, one Fury unit, who now owns the objective and cannot be shot because they're locked in combat with this thing. So its existence is actively harming the army that owns it.
Type40 wrote: and it provides a unshiftable Look Out Sir rock... there is inherent value in that no ?
Only if it has the vehicle or monster keyword, which is an assumption not in the original text.
Type40 wrote: Its not worth 0 points,
Wounds on their own have some inherent value, I am not going to try and work out what that is... all I am saying is that it IS something. Are we really going to try and argue that it is absolutely nothing ?
Type40 wrote: but honestly, I am no designer. I am not going to attempt to pick an exact point cost... my only point in this argument is, wounds themselves do bring some inherent value on their own. Trying to figure out how many points and blah blah blah, doesn't really change that does it ?
his point is to provide a unit with nearly infinite wounds and ask you how much it is worth if all it has is wounds. And don't worry about putting it on an objective - a single enemy model takes that objective away without having to touch this abomination.
Yes,, so it forces an opponent to dedicate "a single enemy unit" to it "without having to touch this abomination." and it provides a unshiftable Look Out Sir rock... there is inherent value in that no ? Its not worth 0 points, Wounds on their own have some inherent value, I am not going to try and work out what that is... all I am saying is that it IS something. Are we really going to try and argue that it is absolutely nothing ?
No. But what's being said is that a Wound's value varies IMMENSELY based on the other stats and gear that the model has.
This hypothetical immortal unit is useful for two things: Holding a DZ objective until one enemy model contests it, or two take it. And providing LOS Protection for nearby Characters. It has no other use.
If you give it a BS of 2+ and your choice of any of the Leman Russ turrets, suddenly it's a lot more valuable, since it can do significant damage while being unkillable. Give it a move of 12", advance or fall back and charge, and ObSec, and suddenly it's great for stealing objectives. Give it the above and 10 attacks at WS 2+, S10, AP-5, D5 and it can blenderize most anything it touches while being basically impossible to kill.
But, if you drop it down to T1 7+, even at 30 Wounds, then a ten-man AutoBolt Intercessor squad can wipe it in one turn by shooting and charging it. Or you can winnow it down with incidental fire that has no better target, and kill it quite easily with that.
Type40 wrote: Yes,, so it forces an opponent to dedicate "a single enemy unit" to it "without having to touch this abomination."
A single model - so like, a stray daemonette while the other 29 in the unit are in combat with something. Or like, one Fury unit, who now owns the objective and cannot be shot because they're locked in combat with this thing. So its existence is actively harming the army that owns it.
Type40 wrote: and it provides a unshiftable Look Out Sir rock... there is inherent value in that no ?
Only if it has the vehicle or monster keyword, which is an assumption not in the original text.
Type40 wrote: Its not worth 0 points, Wounds on their own have some inherent value, I am not going to try and work out what that is... all I am saying is that it IS something. Are we really going to try and argue that it is absolutely nothing ?
I think we're just exploring the problem.
In the example I gave, I did say it's a vehicle (to stop it from doing Actions).
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
You don't see the viability of sitting that model on an objective, having it act as a tarpit, blocking charge lanes, accomplishing actions or repeatedly pinning units ?
A unit that is nigh immortal would be incredibly useful... this game isn't only about dmg output.
1 Model sitting on an objective is taken off that objective when 2 models show up. It's inability to hold the objective makes it worthless.
I didn't say damage output. I said active impact. Again, buffers are valuable. Shield drones are valuable. That drone for tau that makes it so pulse weapons shoot 6" further is valuable. A Cryptek boosting RP by +1 is valuable.
The point I was making is that a wounds value is variable. Those wounds are worth more if you change it's gun to a heavy bolter. Or a pair of las cannons. Or equip it like an imperial knight.
Ok,,, so before the two models get over to the objective ? what about any actions the model is doing ? what about blocking charge lanes, what about being a tarpit ? ... lol ... your defining active impact as damage output or ability to remove other units... so ya,, you don't have to say it, its what your describing XD.
You are right, but what he is trying to say minus the hyperbole is correct as well. Wounds are more or less valuable depending on what a unit can do, how fast it can move and even how much space it can take up.
In essence, points per wounds are by no means a thing you can just calculate from a formula. Even if you compare extremely similar units - let's say an Assault Terminator, a Deathshroud Terminator, a Mega Nob and a Deathwing Knight - the value of an extra wound on each of them varies wildly for multiple reasons, many of which cannot be easily converted into numbers.
Sure, I can agree with that. All I am doing is disagreeing that a wound has 0 inherent value. But 100% there is no formula for figuring it out. I would argue every stat and rule in the game can not objectively be looked at in a formulaic manner to figure out points... even the synergy of another unit adds to the value of the first one.
So ya, I agree, the value of a "wound" is uncalculatable because of how that stat synergizes with the rest of the unit/other synergies... but you can say the same thing about any stat, ability, rule, table, mission and etc in the game.
I just don't think its fair to say that wounds don't have ANY inherent value.
Even a 1 w t1 sv7+ unit on an objective forces your opponent to spend their action economy dealing with it.
JNAProductions wrote: This hypothetical immortal unit is useful for two things: Holding a DZ objective until one enemy model contests it, or two take it. And providing LOS Protection for nearby Characters. It has no other use.
Actually, this doesn't have to be this hypothetical. Makari actually plays extremely similar to what you are describing and he is definitely not worth 65 points, and that wouldn't change even if you trippled his wounds.
lol see... I am just really terrible at making this assessment ... honestly, I am not always a good list maker, if the unit felt fluffy or interesting to me I probably would totally over pay for it XD.
@type40. So to be clear. You by admission have no sense of value in terms of design, no interest in learning, and are happy to play unbalanced nonsense because it looks neat and then decided to participate in a discusion about the mechanical value of one of the attributes in the game and derail almost a full page of that discusion because you choose to not understand the spirit of what is being said and instead argue what amounts to semantics. Again, semantics on a subject for which you have no meaningful input?
Really you'd have to test it. I mean its a rear-area objective holder. Yes "haha, 1 daemonette can take it" - true, but if a daemonette squad can get across the table and charge into say 10 guardsmen/grots etc, they are probably toast anyway. You are functionally immune to being shot off, so that's valuable. The downside potentially is that its *so* hard to kill, it will never eat up any of your opponents firepower unless literally everything else is dead.
Certainly if it was say 10 points, I can see people taking say 5 or something just to ensure their deployment area and 9" out is functionally immune to DS and will remain so all game.
Lance845 wrote: @type40. So to be clear. You by admission have no sense of value in terms of design, no interest in learning, and are happy to play unbalanced nonsense because it looks neat and then decided to participate in a discusion about the mechanical value of one of the attributes in the game and derail almost a full page of that discusion because you choose to not understand the spirit of what is being said and instead argue what amounts to semantics. Again, semantics on a subject for which you have no meaningful input?
Is that about right?
lol, you really enjoy hyperbole.
No, that isn't right.
I was denouncing your statement about a wound equaling zero value whilst simultaneously acknowledging I am not the best person to calculate it's exact values.
Why are you so quick with using hyperbole to try and humiliate people ...
I thought we were having a pretty enjoyable conversation about whether or not wounds had inherent value (on topic) ... lol,,, show me where in this discussion we all decided we needed to be capable of formulaic and mathematical calculations of point value versus the discussion you triggered about the whether or not there even was inherent value to a wound ? Also, show me where "by admission have no sense of value in terms of design" ... that is pure hyperbole. I said I have a poor sense of point value, not tactical value.
I was not arguing semantics in the slightest. My points are clear and bring incredibly meaningful input, whether or not you choose to acknowledge that because of your inflated hyperbole is on you.
Your comment is pretty self-righteous.
So no, to be clear, what you are proposing with your comment is no where close to be right and is nothing but an overexaggerated farce of what I wrote.
Does the words "Jack gak" sound like an exact figure to you? What exactly are you denouncing?
I am not using hyperbole to humiliate anyone. I am mildly annoyed that you came in here to ignore the point of what I said to fixate on something I did not actually say (this btw is what amounts to arguing semantics).
I did not say that that units value was 0. I said it was worth jack gak.
Lance845 wrote: Does the words "Jack gak" sound like an exact figure to you? What exactly are you denouncing?
I am not using hyperbole to humiliate anyone. I am mildly annoyed that you came in here to ignore the point of what I said to fixate on something I did not actually say (this btw is what amounts to arguing semantics).
I did not say that that units value was 0. I said it was worth jack gak.
You seem to do this in a lot of threads.
Jack gak literally means nothing ("I didn't get given jack gak for my birthday") or anything at all ("He doesn't know jack gak") depending on context. And the context used in your post was the latter.
Don't get upset at others that you apparently don't understand the slang you are using and people don't understand the argument you are attempting to make because of that.
JNA, Unit, And Jidmah seemed to understand it just fine.
Also, just for clarity.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
A nigh immortal unit with 30w 2+ 2++ save and a single heavy 1 6" str 1 D1 weapon isn't worth jack gak for points.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
See how I opened with a statement declaring my point. Followed with an example to provide evidence. And finished with a statement for clarification.
Do you think it adds value to this discussion to then say "Well, it's not worth ZERO."
JNA, Unit, And Jidmah seemed to understand it just fine.
JNA, Unit, and Jidmah and I had a perfectly constructive conversation and set of discourse where we concluded that a wound itself does have some value but it is augmented by a units other stats, rules and the synergies of other units in the same lists.
You are in "attack mode" and are attempting to humiliate someone because ... ? I don't know. you don't like me maybe. Or maybe you don't like that I disagreed with your statement. You are not disputing my points but rather are using hyperoble to discredit me. That is just a form of bullying and not constructive to discourse... but its all good.
You didnt actually mean "jack gak" and that's ok. You initated a point of miscommunication, and that's ok ... You don't need to try and denounce me because of that.
We miscommunicated. In large part because of your choice of words. Again, this happens, its ok.
Type40 wrote:
JNA, Unit, and Jidmah and I had a perfectly constructive conversation and set of discourse where we concluded that a wound itself does have some value but it is augmented by a units other stats, rules and the synergies of other units in the same lists.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
let's move on.
I am glad they convinced you of the thing I said from the beginning. Lets.
Type40 wrote:
JNA, Unit, and Jidmah and I had a perfectly constructive conversation and set of discourse where we concluded that a wound itself does have some value but it is augmented by a units other stats, rules and the synergies of other units in the same lists.
Lance845 wrote: A wounds value is variable based on it's active impact on the battlefield.
Providing valuable auras or secondary effects and having good offensive output makes wounds valuable. You cannot calculate the value of a wound on it's own. You can only calculate it in relation to the rest of the unit.
let's move on.
I am glad they convinced you of the thing I said from the beginning. Lets.
Lol alright man.
If being right is that important to you, then sure. Then I concede, they definitely convicned me that wounds wern't worth "jack gak" just like you "said from the beginning" XD and my demonstration of how a wound has inherent value was for naught XD.
Leth wrote: Not really, it’s job is to sit there and score points or prevent deep strike.
If you are still thinking like it’s 8th edition then not much I can say. If my opponent using a their long range or barrage to take out Gretchen? (If they even have it) then they have more than made up their points.
Most likely however they are not going to bother and they will be free to sit there in peace being “worthless” hell most likely I would spend one cp to have them get me deploy scramblerss.
At 5ppm, yeah why wouldn't a Marine waste some random shots to kill them? If you hit them with a pair of stormbolters you put on a rhino for example you gun down like 4 of them, congrats your Stormbolter upgrades just paid for themselves x2. Also, that Grot unit will fail the morale test and lose 1-2 more models. 10pt upgrade on a vehicle just netted you a 300% return on investment, not bad.
