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

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're saying the weapons are priced according to their platform? Doesn't that contradict the idea that you pay for the weapon and platform separately? Shouldn't a Lascannon be priced assuming a Russ has 1, and a Heavy Weapon Squad has 3, therefore resulting in different prices for different platforms, by your logic?

Only Russes can take Russ turret weapons, thus those costs are designed to work only with them. Same is not true for heavy bolters or lascannons.

Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)

Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).

As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.

Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:

Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)

Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).

As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.

Those other units are not in the Astra Militarum part of the Index Imperium 2, and thus are really not a problem of the person who wrote that book.

 Kingsley wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Looking at the Rhino (70) vs Razorback (65) the only difference is the self repair. This makes me sure that it's 6.5 points per T7 3+ wound and that repair at 5 points (.167 * 5 turns * 6.5 = 5ish points).

That means secondaries are not values and that the Razorback is undercosted 2 hard points. It does look like I screwed up some math above so taking secondaries off the table and keeping hard points at 8:

Base HP Remainder Rhino 70 0 0 Hellhound 72 24 +23 Chimera 65 16 -4 Predator 72 32 +2 Devilfish 78 24 +1 Hammerhead 85 32 -7 Sky Ray 85 16 -18

So it still feels like seeker missiles have some attached cost to them, but other secondary weapons may not.

The Rhino transports 4 more guys than the Razorback - I suspect that capacity is factored into the cost somehow.

You could instead assume:
wound = 6 points
hard point = 9 points
transport capacity = 1 point per

Rhino would be 60+10 = 70
Predator would be 66+36 = 102
Razorback is still under-costed by 2 hardpoints though

Guard vehicles likely use a slightly different formula due to BS 4+, something like:
wound = 5 points
hard point = 6
transport = 1

Hellhound = 55+18 = 73
Chimera = 50+12+12 = 74 (1 point off)

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.

Let's take this one step at a time.

In this scenario *why* is a lascannon on a leman russ more valuable than one on a HWT?

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.

Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

That's true, but part of the reason to make it a separate cost is future-proofing, right? So shouldn't a Punisher cannon be priced correctly for all platforms? Surely if they can do it with Lascannons they can do it with Punisher Cannons, if they're going to price them independently.

Maybe they should have, but they obviously didn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:

Actually, when generalizing like that, that claim becomes even less accurate than "only Russes can take Punishers" (as I pointed out, the Vulture can take Punishers. Two of them, to be exact.)

Demolisher Cannons and Battle Cannons can be taken on a huge number of different units, both in the IG and in the Imperium at large, as can lascannons (which yes, the lascannon is a Russ turret option).

As a result, even the options that are exclusive have to be priced as if they weren't, because they have to be priced relative to Demolisher Cannons, Battle Cannons, and lascannons.

Those other units are not in the Astra Militarum part of the Index Imperium 2, and thus are really not a problem of the person who wrote that book.

What about the Baneblade and the Hellhammer? Both are in that exact section, both have Demolisher cannons.

Also, FW units are definitely relevant as long as they're still part of the IG. Because the cost basis is relevant to the entire faction: a battle cannon is a battle cannon no matter which book it's in. The battle cannon doesn't magically become a better weapon just because it's in a FW book.

Lykanthar wrote:

You could instead assume:
wound = 6 points
hard point = 9 points
transport capacity = 1 point per

Rhino would be 60+10 = 70
Predator would be 66+36 = 102
Razorback is still under-costed by 2 hardpoints though

Guard vehicles likely use a slightly different formula due to BS 4+, something like:
wound = 5 points
hard point = 6
transport = 1

Hellhound = 55+18 = 73
Chimera = 50+12+12 = 74 (1 point off)

That's pretty feasible as well. There are still some issues with built in abilities, but those would be relatively minor. I think the biggest take-away is that the majority of units are costed to a formula. Whether or not it's the right formula is up for debate, but as long as it gets consistently applied makes it good enough for now. Things like the Razorback will eventually get tagged, i'm sure.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

I'm sorry but this is simply innumerate. The thing you want -- having to make decisions in list building -- is not helped by using a single cost for all weapons across all platforms. I mean, why not just try to come up with costs for the weapons on each platform that come as close as possible to equalizing their appeal on that particular platform? There's absolutely no reason to think that single costs for weapons is the best way, or even a particularly good way, to force interesting decisions about whether you want lots of weapons on fragile platforms or fewer weapons on durable platforms.

Let's take this one step at a time.

In this scenario *why* is a lascannon on a leman russ more valuable than one on a HWT?

Wait, which kind of HWT? The one in a heavy weapon squad? Because a heavy weapon squad with more than one lascannon in it is widely understood to not be a good choice. I'm really not even a big fan of taking even a single lascannon in a HWS. It shoots okay but it's going to die as soon as anything looks at it, and the shooting doesn't make up for the fragility given its cost. It should be cheaper. Meanwhile a LRBT without any add-ons is extremely durable and not at all shooty, and no one would want to take one. It's an easy call to give it some extra heavy weapons, if you're taking one at all.

But, regardless, you're just asking the wrong question. It's kind of silly to get really concerned with what a weapon should cost on a specific unit, and often there will not even be a single correct answer since that might depend on other options the unit takes. What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?". And: "How many points should a Heavy Weapon Squad with 3 lascannons cost?". And then you should be trying to make those combinations of choices cost as near as possible to the right amounts given the constraints of your system (the main one here being that weapons cost the same for all units that can take them).

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

 ross-128 wrote:

What about the Baneblade and the Hellhammer? Both are in that exact section, both have Demolisher cannons.

True. Still only one demolisher cannon per model. And there doesn't seem to be a problem with the cost of those units.

Also, FW units are definitely relevant as long as they're still part of the IG. Because the cost basis is relevant to the entire faction: a battle cannon is a battle cannon no matter which book it's in. The battle cannon doesn't magically become a better weapon just because it's in a FW book.

It might become better if the platform is better. Or if there is multiple of them.

Seriously, the point costs were written for the units in the index, and applying them blindly for other units will obviously cause problems. You don't need to be a genius to realise this.

The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.

For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HB HWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LC HWS...

You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.

The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.

For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HB HWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LC HWS...

You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.

Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.

And saying Forge World = GW is absurd, and false.

Dionysodorus wrote:
What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".

Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.

There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.

As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).

You're not criticizing forge world at this point, your issue is clearly with GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.

And saying Forge World = GW is absurd, and false.

No but I have been to Warhammer World and asked that very question. They're the same company. Their paychecks both are deposited by GW PLC and their employer is GW PLC on tax forms.

So no, it's not false. At some level, they even have the same bosses. Just two design teams under one roof.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".

Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.

...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?

First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.

Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?

A company called golden gate capital owns Red lobster and olive garden. They use the same payroll company. Does Red Lobster = Olive Garden? No - Red lobster sucks and olive garden is usually pretty amazing.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".

Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.

...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?

First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.

Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?

I'm not sure that you're understanding the point.

Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.

They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?

Pricing guidelines can easily be abused.

Consider the "Trogdor Rhino," the newest Forgeworld Unit.

Rhino, with 5x Twin-Lascannons.

320 points as per pricing guidelines, for 10 lascannon shots with 10 transport capacity.

Consider this list:
1x Trogdor Rhino
1x Trogdor Rhino
1x Trogdor Rhino
1x Trogdor Rhino
1x Azrael
4x 5 man TAC squads /w Flamers

This comes out to roughly 1760 points. The 4 Trogdor Rhinos have a 4++ thanks to Azrael and spit out 40 lascannon shots per turn, rerolling hits.

Balanced?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.

FW unit.

As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).

Leman Russ Turret weapons are priced based on assumption that you can have only one per vehicle! I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand, either for you or to FW.

Daedalus81 wrote:

I'm not sure that you're understanding the point.

Let's say we have a mystical LRBT with 3 lascannons and a HWS with 3 lascannons.

They both do the same amount of damage. How do we determine their cost?

So, supposing we want to come up with an appropriate point cost for each of these choices that make them viable but not overpowered, we follow what seems to me to be the obvious process. We compare them to similar sorts of units. We ask ourselves if we'd be happy taking them in a list if they cost X points. Throughout, we're doing a lot of math to see how they perform against different targets and how durable they are against different kinds of weapons. We don't want them to be killing 100% of their cost in a single volley, etc. Generally we want the HWS to be significantly more efficient as a source of firepower, because it's going to be a lot less durable. And then we playtest them, and we see if they perform significantly better or worse than we'd expected, and if so we adjust their costs some more.

Like, this is literally how you'd balance anything. This is how everything in the books was balanced, presumably, just with the constraint that they were going to use the same costs for each weapon no matter how many units could take it or how many times they could take it.

Dionysodorus wrote:
The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.

For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HB HWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LC HWS...

You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.

Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.

Well...

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".

Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.

...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?

First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.

Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?

The thing is, if the total cost of the combination is anything other than the sum of the components, that means those components must have a different effective cost in each combination.

So if you want each possible combination to be uniquely costed, you've got to multiply the number of point entries by the number of combinations.

Unless you create a formula that approximates how those combinations interact, and ask your players to calculate the result of that formula each time they finish building a unit. But you ruled that out in that post, preferring to individually price each loadout by "intuition". That means each loadout needs its own, separate entry in the point list. Let me tell you, there are a loooot of loadouts (even if quite a few of them never see play).

Or you remove the combinations by making each loadout a separate unit with no options. Then you can price the unit as a whole, because none of its components can be added or removed. Though unless you remove a lot of possible loadouts in the process, you'll then end up with a number of units equal to the number of possible combinations (which is a lot).

 ross-128 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
The Baneblade and Hellhammer can't exchange their demolisher cannons for anything else, so regardless of what those guns cost and ought to cost on them their base prices could simply be adjusted to compensate.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ross-128 wrote:
The problem with that is you would massively multiply the number of entries in the point section.

For example, if a lascannon in a HB/LC/HB HWS has a different cost than a lascannon in a Infantry HWT, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a triple-lascannon HWS, which has a different cost than a lascannon in a AC/LC/LC HWS...

You could end up with 30 solid pages of nothing but point costs.

Maybe I've missed it, but has someone advocated this? All I've seen is that some people think that the entry for the twin punisher gatling cannon should cost more points, which obviously isn't going to increase the amount of text at all.

Well...

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
What you should be asking is: "How many points should a Leman Russ with a battle cannon, a lascannon, and two heavy bolters cost?".

Cost according to what metric? What variables are we doing to determine it's value? This isn't some mystical number we can just dump out.

...what? So you have no problem coming up with formulas that you assume are being applied everywhere that treat weapons and platforms separately (though of course this is not what they're actually doing since you've observed that your formulas don't get point costs exactly right), but the second someone suggests that you could take account of the interactions between platforms and weapons this is just impossible and mystical?

First, I do not think that it is a good idea to set every price according to a formula. You can get some good estimates this way but there is value in playtesting, and just in the intuition of mathematically-competent people who know how the game works.

Second, why is it so much harder to try to have your formula account for interactions between platform and weapon than for it to consider platforms and weapons separately? Like, just as a first pass, why not deem a unit's power level to be proportional to the product of its offense and defense, or something like that? Why is that so much more mystical than saying that it's the sum of offense and defense?

The thing is, if the total cost of the combination is anything other than the sum of the components, that means those components must have a different effective cost in each combination.

So if you want each possible combination to be uniquely costed, you've got to multiply the number of point entries by the number of combinations.

Unless you create a formula that approximates how those combinations interact, and ask your players to calculate the result of that formula each time they finish building a unit. But you ruled that out in that post, preferring to individually price each loadout by "intuition". That means each loadout needs its own, separate entry in the point list. Let me tell you, there are a loooot of loadouts (even if quite a few of them never see play).

Or you remove the combinations by making each loadout a separate unit with no options. Then you can price the unit as a whole, because none of its components can be added or removed. Though unless you remove a lot of possible loadouts in the process, you'll then end up with a number of units equal to the number of possible combinations (which is a lot).

I think you've misunderstood what I'm doing. I'm not saying that I want it to be the case that there are like 3^5 different possible point costs for a HWS. I'm just demonstrating that obviously there's a drawback to GW's approach, which is that you're going to have lots of unbalanced choices. Personally, I like the way they used to do it, where each unit had its options priced independently, although generally not in such a way that different combinations of options required different costs for each option. I think it would be a better game if heavy weapon squads had their own prices for each heavy weapon, but a worse game, due to the additional complexity, if every possible combination of HWTs had a different price. But I haven't really been advocating that here so much as I've been pointing out that it's just silly to think that you can do this one-cost-fits-all system and not pay any price for it.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.

FW unit.

As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).

Leman Russ Turret weapons are priced based on assumption that you can have only one per vehicle! I really don't understand why this is so hard to understand, either for you or to FW.

Because nothing else is priced that way, even on the same unit. I don't know why you don't understand why that might be confusing or a break with the rest of the game's logic.

Still, that would rather massively increase the number of entries. Even if it's only a different price per unit instead of a different price per loadout, you'd have:

Lascannon in a HWS
Lascannon in an infantry squad
Lascannon on a LRBT
Lascannon on a Valkyrie
Lascannon on a Vendetta
Lascannon on a Baneblade (possibly multiplied by the number of baneblade variants: does the Shadowsword's bonus against Titans make its lascannons more expensive?)
Lascannon in a Command Squad
Lascannon in a Veteran Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon on an Armored Sentinel
Lascannon on a Scout Sentinel

That's just one weapon, just in the index. And it's not even something as ubiquitous as a Heavy Bolter. Adjusting at the faction level is perhaps the best we can do, and even that is not something GW does very often. The difference between SM and IG heavy weapon costs seems to be the exception more than the rule.

 ross-128 wrote:
Still, that would rather massively increase the number of entries. Even if it's only a different price per unit instead of a different price per loadout, you'd have:

Lascannon in a HWS
Lascannon in an infantry squad
Lascannon on a LRBT
Lascannon on a Valkyrie
Lascannon on a Vendetta
Lascannon on a Baneblade (possibly multiplied by the number of baneblade variants: does the Shadowsword's bonus against Titans make its lascannons more expensive?)
Lascannon in a Command Squad
Lascannon in a Veteran Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon in a Tempestus Command Squad
Lascannon on an Armored Sentinel
Lascannon on a Scout Sentinel

That's just one weapon, just in the index. And it's not even something as ubiquitous as a Heavy Bolter. Adjusting at the faction level is perhaps the best we can do, and even that is not something GW does very often. The difference between SM and IG heavy weapon costs seems to be the exception more than the rule.

I mean, they used to do this no trouble. Where a unit's options are listed there'd be a parenthetical point cost, just like it now does with unit size and power rating. For most of those units you can probably get away with using a single price without it being too bad, so you just refer to a heavy weapons list (that will have prices). And then for the HWS you make their wargear options two lines instead of one and you say "Each model must take a lascannon (+15 points), a mortar (+8 points)..." and so on. And really this isn't even that much text if you just do something like that for all of the units -- it's an extra line of wargear options. It generally won't add any lines for things that can take more limited selections, like units that have the option to just take a heavy bolter. You just add "(+X points)" after "heavy bolter" in their wargear options.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Because nothing else is priced that way, even on the same unit. I don't know why you don't understand why that might be confusing or a break with the rest of the game's logic.

A lot of stuff that only one specific unit can take is discounted or free. Also, why you think combi-bolter costs more than two bolters or combi-weapons in general cost more than their constituent parts? Why does hurricane bolter cost more than six bolters?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

It is stupid that they have two rules teams to begin with, and I don't know what sort of instructions the FW team was given. But they should have realised that blindly applying point costs for different platforms and multiples of same weapon would cause problems. I mean seriously, if you could give Russ double turret weapon just paying the double cost, I'm pretty sure everyone would always do that.

There's actually a tank like that - Leman Russ Annihilator can get two weapons for twice the cost, though they're lascannons.

As for your comment... what are you on about? GW itself does that, having single points costs for weapons are blindly applied across different platforms, and some of them have 1 (e.g. a heavy bolter on a Hydra), 3 (e.g. heavy bolters in an Infantry Squad) or 5 (e.g. heavy bolters on a Malcador Defender).

You're not criticizing forge world at this point, your issue is clearly with GW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

And if they didn't, that's their fault, not Forge World's. So again, the problem is Games Workshop, not Forge World.

No it isn't. It is not a 'problem' that GW didn't use pricing logic you wanted them to use. The logic they actually used seems to work OK in it's intended context; that FW tried to blindly apply it outside that context without understanding the implications is the problem, and really does not speak well of their grasp of the system.

Forge World is GW.

If GW failed to write a system according to logic that would account for other GW publications, that's a problem.

It's not like Forge World is some 3rd party or homebrew thing. They're a different team within the very same company handed a document and told "make your stuff fit within this framework."

If the framework is badly written enough that following it to the letter causes issues, then the framework is bad.

This is not some horrible deviation from precedent, as I hope I've illustrated, that Forge World has done here. They've followed the pricing logic for weapons on multiple platforms exactly the way it is for every other weapon that is on multiple platforms within the framework they were handed.

Clearly you work for Forgeworld or Games Workshop to be able to make these claims.

And saying Forge World = GW is absurd, and false.

No but I have been to Warhammer World and asked that very question. They're the same company. Their paychecks both are deposited by GW PLC and their employer is GW PLC on tax forms.

So no, it's not false. At some level, they even have the same bosses. Just two design teams under one roof.

Yet they haven't. Why is the base hull for a Leman Russ Conqueror 110pts when it has exactly the same stats profile as a normal Leman Russ? In fact, it gets the co-axial rule that applies to its 'only' turret option, the conqueror cannon, which makes it a much better choice than the regular battle cannon - so the conqueror is cheaper while receiving an additional ability.

LR battle tank from the core book with a HB and battle cannon costs you 162pts. Same exact loadout on a LR conqueror - HB + Conqueror cannon and co-axial Stormbolter - costs you 145pts. Why is the FW option cheaper when the only difference is the co-axial rule and range? Is 72" really worth another 17pts compared to +1 to hit within 24"?

And as others have stated, just because the overall business - greater GW - is the same in no way allows anyone to just hand wave away that FW and 'mainstream GW' have different design teams by saying "but they're both GW". To pile on with the examples pointing out the untenable nature of such logic - HBO and CNN are owned by Time Warner. As such HBO and CNN are, according to your logic, exactly the same. They're Time Warner! Untenable at best; ridiculous at worst.

The Vulture Gunship is literally the only unit that can take a 'twin Punisher gatling cannon' at the moment; there is no reason whatsoever it couldn't have been given a separate points cost from 'the formula' to accommodate its relative power. By comparison, a Vulture w/mandatory HB, two hellstrikes, and a twin lascannon costs 200pts. Why, other than blind application of 'the formula' without regard to playtesting or balance, would a Vulture with TPGC cost 160pts by comparison?

FW's design team =/= GW's design team, and it is blatantly evident that FW's design team only blindly applied the points principles that GW's design team created without regard to balance or playtesting. That GW took the effort to integrate some formerly FW options and did not integrate FW into its mainstream rules or even its mainstream online shop - keeping the solidly divided, in fact - only makes this clearer.

FW is not balanced and should not be allowed in ITC/Matched Play tournaments. One can point out balance problems in mainstream GW's rules, and they exist, but FW adds an even greater degree of imbalance only exacerbated by the FW design team's unfortunate lackadaisical application of the 8th ed points value system.