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.

My WIP thought is to replace it with the following: ( i.e all armor values become toughness values)

AV10= T5 5+
AV11=T5 4+
AV12= T6 4+6+
AV13= T7 3+5+
AV14= T7 2+4+

Special Rules:

Vehicle- Models with this rule ignore the effects of poison.
Armorbane- Weapons with this rule always successfully wound on a 3+ when rolling to wound against models with the Vehicle special rule.
Melta- As with Armorbane, but only when within the weapon is firing within half range.
Lance- Treats models with T7 or higher as being T6 and reduces their armor save to a 4+ for one turn.
Gauss- Rolls of six to wound always wound regardless of toughness.
AP1- The same affects as AP2 except that it also ignores cover saves and reduces invul saves by 1.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh. Sorry I didn't see you posted already

The issue with that chart is your survivability drops too far.

The durability of a creature is between +4 and +5 in regards to comparing it to armor value. So a toughness 8 creature is between av12 and 13. The better the saving throw, the closer to the upper number. When you run that in reverse, you look at the highest armor value on the vehicle. Subtract 5 from that, that is your toughness. Then the more sides that are equal to that, the better the saving throw.

So, with the rhino, 11-5 equals 6 for baseline toughness. Three sides are shared, and your base saving throw is 6+(because it is closed topped) now you subtract the number of shared sides from the base save (6+ minus 3 sides equals 3+) that makes a rhino a toughness 6 3+ creature.

Does that make sense to anyone but me? I've been looking at this math for too long

Edit: for clarity's sake

I see your formula, but I don't know if it translates completely over to Toughness. I think some play-testing will be in order, but I think its a bit too much.

But just to show I know what your talking about.

Space Marine Land-Speeder
AV10-5= T5
Open topped so base save is 7+ and shares 4 sides so it would be a 3+ save?

That makes a land Speeder a T5 3+ creature?

Yes, with two wounds. Now you can kill it with lasguns, strength 6 wounds on a 3+, instead of glancing on a 4. It will be more susceptible to small arms fire, and heavy weapons will still shred it. A railcannon will guarantee it is destroyed on a 2+ instead of only having a 1/3 chance. I've been play testing and doing the math for this conversion for 2 months, that's how I was able to respond so quickly before

Edit, also, armorbane and melta should be shred at their normal 2d6 range, and ordinance should roll twice for wounding, pick the highest for models with the vehicle keyword. Haywire wounds vehicles on a 2+ no matter the toughness, and a roll of 6 becomes ap2. Ap1 weapons are instant death vehicles on a to wound roll of 6. If you added the vehicle keyword to every giant robot monstrous creature with this system, you would have a serious balancing factor across the board!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Looking at it two charts, it seems their are a couple instances of points equality for lower av vehicles. An Ork trukk can be either toughness 5, 5+ or toughness 6 6+. Your land speeder would actually choose between toughness 5 4+ or toughness 6 5+ and I was wrong earlier with the dreadnaught, it would be toughness 7 4+

You'll see when the update comes out, you can just add up the points spent on armor and whether or not it is open topped, then just look for the corresponding point total in the toughness/save chart. If there's more than one that works, use your best judgement

Ok I'm a bit more convinced, especially since your V.D.R has been so spot on so far.

OK, some other things I discovered. The daemon prince in chaos daemons is the only monster in there that pays for deep strike. Which is why it seems weaker comparatively to other choices than the counterpart in chaos space marines.

I also found an entirely new way to decide point totals for melee attacks. When testing out things like the avatar of khaine and the keeper of secrets, the points per attack system broke. (HARD) so, I went back to the cutting board. I realized the reason everything pays the same for melee weapons in the game, they already pay for the higher stats.

The reason power fists cost the same for spacemarines as it does for a guard sargent is the marine is now a 39 point model, the guardsman is a 31 point model. The weapon doesn't need to scale. So, I figured out what the totals would end up at.

Monstrous creatures get a discount, because they already have ap2 (which they do pay for) so things like powers words or even power fists mean less to them than the walkers.

Did anyone else have a request? Should be done by this weekend

VDR has been updated to include Monstrous Creature Design Rules (as well as a few cost changes). Link in first post.

Nicely done !!

I still marvel at your patience for reverse engineering the point costs.

I actually enjoy it, in a weird math kind of way. Thanks for making it not be a waste of my time!

OK guys, something else I discovered. The monstrous creatures in imperial armor warmachines of the lost and the damned are absolute garbage points wise. None of them are worth putting on the table, the gargantuan ones are so overpriced it is preposterous.

I've always liked forgeworld rules, but there is a REASON these things never see the table.

I honestly thin kit's better when they are a bit overcosted.
The whining about under costed FW units can take the fun out of a gaming session.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I took a month, mathed it out, and built vehicles from every codex from land speeders to phantom titans. My math is dead on, and now I wanna share

Wow. I doubt that.

Evidence?

I looked at this and immediatly thought all your assumptions are flawed and your conclusions biased and you are on a ego trip. Every post has a "I discovered" or "My findings". Says it all.

Perhaps you need to hear a few "No you didn't" "no they aren't"

It shocks me how much people take you seriously

OK then, show me where my point totals are way off the mark. I have asked from the start for people to break my system, there have been 9 versions of the rules so far due to just that.

Also, I didn't come up with this thing on the fly. I updated the 4th edition one that games workshop released. I went with the assumption that the one they used in house would have to be similar to the chapter approved one because why would they create an ENTIRELY new system instead of just tweaking theirs.

So go ahead, tell me how wrong I am. Point out mathematical mistakes and let me continue fine tuning the system. My ego trip of answering questions by stating from the start that all of the information I put forth is from my work with the system, and not from some higher source, while busting my hump getting ahold of every resource available and fixing the issues I ask people to find is the strangest one I've heard of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 adamsouza wrote:
I honestly thin kit's better when they are a bit overcosted.
The whining about under costed FW units can take the fun out of a gaming session.

Being a bit overcosted is one thing, but anggrath is over 300 point overcosted! The spined chaos beast is 40 over. That is really unacceptable...

OK folks, what are your opinions on the monster design rules?

I think the vehicle stuff came out pretty good so far, wanted to know what you guys think needs improved/ changed with the rules set

Why are Missile Launchers 30 points? That is way too much for what you get out of them. They should be the same price as an Autocannon. A krak Missile is one better strength and AP, but you only get one extra shot, the Frag missile is a blast but one less strength. Overall around equal to an autocannon, not twice as better.

Ok! I based the pricing on the games workshop price ratings, I should have dropped the missile launcher when I decided to start adjusting stuff.

I also normally play the missile launchers as having their skyfire upgrade for free at home, so the price seemed fine to me.

Anything else? Keep it comming

OK, so my next goal with the vdr is to start adjusting points for ranged weapons where appropriate. There are a lot of guns in this game that are strapped onto vehicles and monstrous creatures that are seriously out of alignment. I am going to try and get those discrepancies in order like I started to with superheavy level guns.

For example, the ork killkannon is 30 points. That gives you bs2, a 24" range, strength of 7 armor piercing 3, and a large blast.

For twenty five points (total, not more) the imperial battle cannon has 4 foot longer range, 1 better ballistic skill, one better strength, and ordinance. So a vastly superior weapon, fired by a slightly more capable crew, is somehow the cheaper alternative...

Seems a bit off to me. I will be using weapons that I haven't seen complaints about how over powered they are (battle cannon, heavy bolter, las cannon, autocannon, and missile launchers) and adjust points discrepancies where I see them for similar guns in places where I've noticed complaints.

Do you guys have any suggestions where to start besides what was said above?

Looking good mate!
Keep up the good work!


Although I would want to know how you would price Strength D if you used my house rules for how they work in the fix Strength D thread.

]

Here's what I would do:

Strength D
Ignores cover and armor.
Invuls and FNP can be taken as normal.
Against Vehicles:
1-nothing
2-5- lose 3hp
6- lose 3hp and roll on the penetration table with a +2 modifier

( per model affected)
Everything else
1-nothing
2- 5- unit suffers 3 wounds
6- unit suffers 3 wounds with the instant death special rule.

OK, with the changes you made there the strength D weapons become automatic death to almost every single model in the game instead of just being scary.

There are few things in the game that have more than three wounds or hullpoints, so it would kill everything that is lower than a land raider in size and less wounds than a carnifex.

Allowing feel no pain to work against it is strange because strD was one of the two ways to actually negate it.

Giving it ignore cover maxes it a guaranteed death sentence for almost every vehicle in the game.

My fix for strD is don allow it to roll on the pen chart unless the target is superheavy, and a 6 on the chart does d3+3 instead of d6+6 to allow for smaller superheavies and gargantuan creatures to have a chance to survive an encounter long enough to attempt to strike back.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
To answer your question, it would actually make strength D more expensive than the current version because you aren't hoping for good rolls to do the work for you. Your version just gives it a more clear target list. Probably another 5-10 points per shot...

So, I decide to re calculate the ork walkers using my system to see how off they are from my math. The two 'orkanaughts are both literally priced out as superheavies! They would be the cheapest superheavy walkers in the game, and that makes sense because the stompa is the cheapest titan level walker in the game as well. You can safely run the gorkanaught and morkanaught as superheavy walkers with 6 hullpoints and it wouldn't be unbalanced in the slightest. Deff dredds are fine where they are in points, but fall under the same issues as other walkers. Killa kans should be 40 points each. GW didn't give them any points discount for the "cowardly grots" rule.

Dreadknights are 10 points too cheap, most everything else I checked remained where I thought it was.

Should be done this weekend, will upload the update Sunday afternoon. You guys have anything else for me?

Update finished!

I have fully quantified survivability, as near as I can tell. So when building your own creations, or checking how other units are balanced for one another, their only differences should be weapons systems. My personal balancing act for weapons is pretty close to finished, here is hoping you guys enjoy it

Have fun!

Excellent work as usual !!

How have the custom units you've made so far worked out balance wise?

Made up this one for the fun of it.
( Think Mad Max)
Human War Rig- 290pts.
BS 3 AV 14/13/12 HP4
Fast, Tank, Ramshackle (stole this from the orks section sorry)

Wargear: Smoke Launcher, Searchlight, Flames of Gloreh’, Infantry Mulcha’, Overkilla’

Flames of Gloreh’ - S7 ap3 template, torrent
Infantry Mulcha’- Range 36” S5 ap4 Heavy 10
Overkilla’- Range 24” S6 ap4 Heavy 4 Rending, Armor bane

That looks like an awesome vehicle! Tell me you have a model for it...

Don't forget the Thunderpoons!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:That looks like an awesome vehicle! Tell me you have a model for it...

Not yet, but I have been wanting to make a Mad Max themed army for a while now. I am thinking of going all orky with it, and just converting everything up. But to start things off I need to find a model kit for the 1973 Ford XB Falcon GT351 that fits GW's scale.

Matthew wrote:Don't forget the Thunderpoons!

Ok. The War rig may take up to 2 Thunderpoon launchers( Missile launcher with all options) for 10pts each. Sound good?

I'd say a S7 AP3/4 One use Only... Maybe 5-8 on each vehicle?

Here's one I threw together.

Slaaneshi knight hunter.
Av 13-12-12
6 HP
Str10
Init5 ws5 bs4 A4
Double vanquisher cannon
Two heavy stubber
I strength D melee weapon
Agile
Fleet
Daemon of slaanesh
Knight ion shield
Total 430 points

Just want to see if I did this right

Small Eldar MC

Durability: Toughness 8, 3+ Armour Save: 80 pts
Wounds: 3 Wounds: 25 pts
Ranged Weapons: 2x Shuriken Canatapults: 8 pts
Melee Weapons: 3 Attacks at WS4: 9 pts
Options: Fearless: 5 pts

So I have (I think) 127 pts. The only thing I'm not sure on is if I screwed up Wounds (is it 25 pts per Wound, or 25 pts for all 3 Wounds?) and Attacks (is it 3 pts for each attack, including the base 1, or is it 3 pts for each attack after the base?)

Depending, I am looking at 124-177 pts for the model (I think).