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

I think he's implyign that the BS of the guardsmen, is bound into the GUARDSMEN'S cost, while the cost of the LC includes only the strength, and AP value, which are inherent in the item.

On the other hand, I still think he's wrong. The utility of a combination of unit stats and weapons stats should form the cost of the unit as a whole. Neither of those two portions of the equation is a static value.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.

Of course it makes sense. Because the Lascannons are exactly the same. If the Guardsman is crappier then the Space Marine, then he should cost a lot less. He, not the Lascannon. Yet in GW's twisted mind, IG get Lascannons at 25 points, while Marines get them at 20 points. WTF? And Marine Tac Squads pay less/more than Devs depending on the weapon. It's ridiculous.

As you say, the Guardsman will miss more often (16% more often, not twice as much). And with lower Toughness, lower (or more often no) Save, lower Leadership, and weaker meat shields, he will die more often. (Assuming he gets hit by a Boltgun shell, I think he has a 67% chance of dying, while a Marine would have only a 17% chance.)

So is the Lascannon less effective in the hands of the Imperial Guard? Of course. But it still performs exactly the same once it hits. It is the model firing it that is different lowers the chance of it hitting. Therefore the model firing it must be priced differently based on the combination's effectiveness and not the weapon.

This can, of course, be carried to extremes. Remember, a Space Marine is 18 times more effective than a Guardsman in close combat and at shooting. Therefore, technically, he should cost 18 times as much.

Followed me into yet another thread and... *checks*... yep, being contrary to everything I say.

I will give you one thing Shummy, you are gloriously consistent.

BYE

WARSEER! USE TACTICS!!! RARRRRR!!! wrote:I asked about the rumoured combined/not combined Inquisition book. What he stated was that Witch Hunters and Daemonhunters will remain seperate army lists, that they remain part of the planned 4-6 year edition life cycle, and that the focus will shift towards the militant chambers for each rather than the emphasis being on the Inquisitors. He indicated that the emphasis came from the fact that they were working on Inquisitor at around the same time and basically got a bit carried away.

This depresses me more than anything, especially since I have something like a dozen Inquisitors.

the =I= is basically the only codex that allows us to create fairly different human heroes. IG officers are usually best off hiding in the back but an Inquisitor can go toe-to-toe with most foes.

No, not very well, but at least he can.

And now he's going away.



Who'll oppress the peasants now?

that and if powerfist cost the same the guard would get screwd on that to not as high of strength

ShumaGorath wrote:When those books are often times spaced several years and editions apart yeah, its too big an undertaking.

Absolute nonsense. Using Storm Shields as the example again, this is their first change since 3rd Ed came out. They've managed to keep it consistent for a decade, what's changed now? Oh... that's right... no one used Assault Terminators in 4th because Assault Cannons ruled. So we need something to get people buying Assault Terminators... I know! We'll make Storm Shields uber.

BYE

So is the Lascannon less effective in the hands of the Imperial Guard? Of course. But it still performs exactly the same once it hits. It is the model firing it that is different lowers the chance of it hitting. Therefore the model firing it must be priced differently based on the combination's effectiveness.

Unfortunately that doesn't actually work. that would mean three point guardsman. Congratulations, you can now have 633 guardsman at 2000 points. What about flamers? A guardsman can't miss with them so in theory he should be the same point value as a space marine to reflect so. So which will it be? Do we drop their points to practically nothing to make up for the fact that their lascanons cost the same, or do we keep them the same points because they are just as god with a flamer.


It doesn't work. You should know it doesn't work. Points values need to reflect the overall combat effectiveness of a model with all of its equipment. Not the model and equipment separately. Saying a space marines powerfist and a guardsmans powerfist should be the same is just stupid.

Followed me into yet another thread and... *checks*... yep, being contrary to everything I say.

I will give you one thing Shummy, you are gloriously consistent.

You created the thread. What? I'm not allowed to enter and voice my opinion? Stop being so consistently wrong and I'll stop consistently disagreeing with you.

Absolute nonsense. Using Storm Shields as the example again, this is their first change since 3rd Ed came out. They've managed to keep it consistent for a decade, what's changed now? Oh... that's right... no one used Assault Terminators in 4th because Assault Cannons ruled. So we need something to get people buying Assault Terminators... I know! We'll make Storm Shields uber.

No one used assault termies in fourth because assault termies were trash. Not because the assault canon made regular terminators ok. You never saw storm shields anywhere except terminators, because they were trash. No IC needed them because they already had the save and replacing your gun with +1 better INV for the same point value is just not worth it.

Sorry, but your a little confused on this point.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

So a guardsmans lascanon should cost the same as a space marines. Good to know that you get to pay the same points for a model that will miss twice as often with a third the survivability.

Yeah, that makes so much god damn sense.

Wow. Congrats on drastically overestimating things that are ridiculously easy to figure out. SM hit on a 3, thus miss 1/3 of the time. Basic Guard hit on a 4, thus miss half the time. To miss twice as often... Guard would need BS5. At BS4 they miss half again as much. Not twice as often.

One third of the survivability... That's harder to equate because of the AP factors involved. But I'm not willing to concede that either really. Given the advent of cover saves, intervening models, and so forth, Guard survivability went WAY up, while marine survivability had a pretty negligible bump.

Should a Guard lascannon cost the same as a SM lascannon? Maybe, maybe not. If they did the balancing entirely based on the points per model for a guardsman, yeah, a lascannon should be a lascannon and a guardsman, tactical marine, and devastator marine should all pay the same points cost for it.

Wow. Congrats on drastically overestimating things that are ridiculously easy to figure out. SM hit on a 3, thus miss 1/3 of the time. Basic Guard hit on a 4, thus miss half the time. To miss twice as often... Guard would need BS5. At BS4 they miss half again as much. Not twice as often.

It was exaggeration. I also have no math to back up a third the survivability. Either way, the point came across pretty clearly. How expensive should a naked guardsman be compared to a naked space marine then? Giving him a lascanon that makes him seven times as expensive compared to giving one to a marine that makes him three so makes sense because the gun is the same cost but the total package is now very different. If a space marine with a lascanon is 30 points and a guardsman is 20, they are unequal because a space marine is more than twice the guardsmans overall effectiveness in the game. Its impossible to balance in this way. A three point guardsman and a 20 point marine would create balance post wargear, but then if you don't give them lascanons you now get almost 7 guard to each marine. Thats a little bit horrifyingly broken.

@Shuma

I have to agree with you on this. It should not cost the same amount for a lascannon on a guardsman as it does for a marine, as noted above. Also if that theory rolls over to vehicles it becomes even more erronius as their vehcles vary perhaps even more widely in use and survivability than do the individual units.

While the news regarding the Inq list is a bit worrisome, there's still plenty of time for things to change. It also sounded (to me) that it wasn't quite as dire a HBMC is interpreting it. Not that I'd ever put a lot of faith in hoping GW does the right thing, but this is far enough out that I wouldn't sweat it yet.

Regarding the odd sub-discussion on weapon costs that has popped up, you haven't even touched the issue of the same weapon having varying costs within the same list. Heavy/special weapons cost more in squads with multiple weapons (dev squads, IG HW squads, etc) to try and limit the number these weapons on the board. While I would love to spam these weapons as much as possible, seeing as they do the majority of killing, in terms of tabletop game balance, varying weapon costs make sense.

ShumaGorath wrote:Unfortunately that doesn't actually work. that would mean three point guardsman. Congratulations, you can now have 633 guardsman at 2000 points. What about flamers? A guardsman can't miss with them so in theory he should be the same point value as a space marine to reflect so. So which will it be? Do we drop their points to practically nothing to make up for the fact that their lascanons cost the same, or do we keep them the same points because they are just as god with a flamer.

It only doesn't work because over the last several editions, Games Workshop has changed its model point pricing in a way that has reduced the granularity of the entire point system. Here's what what I mean: GW has set up a system that sets the average game at 1500-2000 points. This is, of course, a completely subjective and created number. It sounds good, it feels good. But it has no inherent meaning in and of itself.

By scaling a space marine and its uber-stats at 15 points (the old time classic figure for years), that equates to 100 space marines at 1500. Or, more likely, 35-50 with other stuff thrown in. That feels like a 1500 point average size game for GW. But the problems come in when you try to scale other items/vehicles/non-space marines at that scale. There is little flexibility within that number range per infantry figure. The granularity is significantly reduced compared to a system where, lets say, the Space Marine was valued at 50 points. Suddenly there is a much wider variety to values to judge the relative merits of one model vs another model. The guardsmen can be 10 points and 5 equal a marine. The guardsmen can be 5 points and 10 equal a marine. Etc. That is harder to do with reduced granularity in the current GW point system.

And it all comes out of setting 1500 as a "magical" number to estimate what an average game should encompass. If GW think that the average game involves more or less models, it has still kind of stuck itself into a corner, by setting the overall limit.

How can this be solved? Well, in the game design process, army selections could be made solely on army composition or FOC. Certain types of armies could have more FOC slots than others to balance the unit to unit merits. Another obvious way would be to simply change prices in another edition. Say, for example, that the space marine is valued at 100 points per man. You have a TON of room to work with the relative values of other units. 1500 doesn't have to be dogma, since its a made up figure to begin with. Games could be based on 3000 points as an average game, a game that "feels" like the current 1500 point game. Now you have twice as much room to "wiggle" around with relative point values.

That method would provide additional room to value the weapons the same, yet adjust for the differences in the values of the models.

Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design. They can set an arbitrary value on different characteristics and abilities, then add them up. As long as every unit is calculated on that system, they would at least have internal consistency within the game system. Right now, a designer says "hey, I think Chosen are worth "X" points" IF that feels good, GW goes with it. Often, they end up realizing that said unit is overpowered or underpowered for its point level, everyone spams it or avoids it, and we all deal with it for 4-6 years until another different designer says, no Chosen are now worth "Y" points. But its still totally random. There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another. A toughness three three wound model is very different then a toughness four one. Not only because of one point of toughness but because it can now be killed instantly by far more weapons. Now throw the armor save in there, what is the metric for a t3 3 wound model with a 3+ save vs a t4 3 wound model with a 3+ save. Is it an independant character? Does it have a high weapon skill? Is the weapon skill reletive to its ability to close to the other side of the board? A high weapon skill is much more useful on a model with a high initiative, and a 2+ armor save is much more important if your initiative is low than it is if its high. But by the same token, a good armor save is the same when it comes to being shot, yet not the same when it comes to transport options, deployment options, and toughness. A carnifex can be one point value in the tyranid codex, but if the tau had something equivalent that would totally change the dynamic of the statline, not just because it would be in a more firepower centered force, but because it would solve the armies one attributable weakness. That being close combat.

Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design.

Then its one I've never seen a company use successfully. Ever. Wizkids stopped doing it early after the firelord fiasco of heroclix and the first few sets of MWA. It just doesn't work, there is too much to account for in a purely mathematical model.

As for the granularity, it doesn't really change much of anything. A 30 point lascanon is still only making a space marine 300% as expensive whereas it makes a six point guardsman 700% so. A 36 point guardsman with lascanon isn't woth only 9 points less than a 45 point marine with one. In the way you describe you would essentially be making the weapon bearer the wargear of the gun.

LittleLeadMen wrote:Frankly, there should be an obvious system for evaluating the point level assigned to a model/unit that is consistent across the board in the game design. They can set an arbitrary value on different characteristics and abilities, then add them up. As long as every unit is calculated on that system, they would at least have internal consistency within the game system. Right now, a designer says "hey, I think Chosen are worth "X" points" IF that feels good, GW goes with it. Often, they end up realizing that said unit is overpowered or underpowered for its point level, everyone spams it or avoids it, and we all deal with it for 4-6 years until another different designer says, no Chosen are now worth "Y" points. But its still totally random. There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

This sounds like a good valid argument. Unfortunately it assumes that the studio actually cares about assigning point values to units and options according to their usefulness in such a way so as to achieve a balanced game. They don't.

ShumaGorath wrote:

There's no systemic method in place to strive for balance, which is kind of lazy.

Thats because there is no mathematical model that can accurately reflect stalines and individual stats interaction with one another.

No, actually it IS because they are lazy and/or don't really care. Jervis has been reported as openly admitting as much.

But this is all besides the point! Let's not sit around and argue about whose lascannon killed whom. That's exactly what Jervis wants us to do! We're missing the big picture here - and that is this: there's a huge sunken cache of plastic falcon treasure at the bottom of the Atlantic waiting for some enterprising soul to recover and possibly either sell on ebay or make the biggest Apocalypse Cloudstrike formation EVER!

I like your thinking. Capitalize on misfortune...

No, actually it IS because they are lazy and/or don't really care. Jervis has been reported as openly admitting as much.

Nope, actually it is is because such mathematical methods are impossible to balance. Whether games workshop is lazy or not doesn't change the fact that thats like saying I don't get to work by teleporting there because I'm too lazy to do so.

As for the falcon treasure, you'll probably be disappointed that when you find the promised pit of falcon some other enterprising soul has already picked it clean of all weapon mounts and flying bases for his looted ork armada.

But the key here is that it doesn't have to be mathematically balanced as a model. Instead, it merely has to be systemically uniform across all units/armies, thereby creating some balance of point values based on the unit's attributes.

And frankly, I'm not completely sure that your assertion that it is impossible to create a mathematical model for these things is accurate. Software developers have created extremely difficult simulations for a lot of the real problems and situations in our world. Creating a test engine for a game that relies on d6 probabilities for a handful of attributes, coupled with a second set of USRs (that can have a rough value assigned to them across the board at first) isn't a feat of the gods by any stretch of the imagination.

And frankly, I'm not completely sure that your assertion that it is impossible to create a mathematical model for these things is accurate. Software developers have created extremely difficult simulations for a lot of the real problems and situations in our world.

Yes, by utilizing simple and measurable inputs typically gathered over a number of years. Mathematical studies like those used in the census bureau have very specific uses and are limited in scope and capability. Things that can not be measured mathematically or that have their mathematical symmetries changed dynamically dependent on the input of other dynamic measurements are exceedingly difficult to quantify mathematically with any semblance of accuracy or usefulness. Its one of the reasons there's no mathematical algorithm to the stock market. Sure, GW could create some sort of vastly complex difference engine to calculate the effective points costs of different models but it wouldn't be accurate enough to replace going by "feel". GW caught a lot of flak for saying that they gauge points by the "feel" of the unit, but honestly it's what everyone in the industry does.

By the way, the reason he didn't confirm Phil Kelly is writing the Guard Codex is because he isn't.

They already stated in White Dwarf several months ago that Robin Cruddace is writing it, and I even managed to get to chat with him about it (although he was able to tell me very little) at Games Day UK.

Phil Kelly IS however, writing both the Space Wolves and Dark Eldar books at the moment (again, found out at Games Day when a friend I was with asked him)

Pariah Press wrote: Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

In what bizarro world do you live in that now, with no forum, magazines, support is better NOW then when the models were easily available, supported in a rotation and such?



anyway. I'm glad their supporting the militant chmbers of DH and WH.....THE inquisitor stuff is nice, but fairly useless on the table.

No SG support, great he just made the lass cry.

Swoop wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Because they won't tell us, or they honestly don't know? And assuming they do know - which I do - why? What do they gain from keeping us in the dark?

I had a friend, who I've unfortunately lost contact with, who used to work in the US sales team for GW in Baltimore. He had an interesting story as to why GW is so close lipped about release dates. I was on an extended break from the hobby at the time so I don't remember these events but apparently when the Falcon Grav Tank was originally being released GW had spent months hyping it up proclaiming the release date etc. There was a slight problem with a large portion of the initial supply for the US being washed overboard in heavy seas crossing the Atlantic. Release date came with hardly any models being available in the US causing a massive outcry from retailers and gamers thinking they were being neglected, slighted, whatever. Ever since then GW doesn't officially announce anything until a few months prior to prevent something like this from happening again.

True? I have no idea... My friend was the consumate salesman (i.e. slimy) so he might have been feeding me a line. It's a nice story though and does make some kind of slowed GW sense.

i remember that. the boat sank apparently and most of the falcons for the US and Canada went with it.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:How are they going to flesh out all those army selections for grey knights when you basically have power armour, terminator armour, dreads and land raiders.

And that is why Inquisition / Sisters / GK / Deathwatch / DH/WH/AH is on hold. As the GK clearly demonstrate, the concepts don't scale well or uniformly across all flavors of the Inquisition, if GW is to have any semblance of Fluff authenticity.
____

Wolfstan wrote:Here's an idea... why doesn't GW sell off the rulebook section?

Because nobody is going to write rules to sell somebody else's minis? And rules publishing is a zero-margin business.

____

Anung Un Rama wrote:IMO, Grey Knight armies are ALREADY a bad idea!

Sisters are a nice army, but they really should keep the Inquisitor stuff. I don't care much for the Death Cult Assassins, but the classic imperial assassins, the henchmen and Arco-Flagelants or whatever they're called are all really cool and fluffy units.

And were is my Ordo-Xenos list gork damnit

Sisters are the only Inquisition army that can stand alone and be fielded as such. GK and DW are much too small. And the overlap between WH and DH is too great. The forces are overly homogenized, so the focus is poor, which is why the armies don't sell. It's like WFB Undead with a half-assed split between VC / TK.

____

Orlanth wrote:I would like to see the Sisters of Battle - which is a fighting arm of the clergy, not the Inquisition, get their own book.

The Daemonhunters codex should be Grey Knights with the possible inclusion of an Inquisitor, maybe maybe not.
A third Codex Inquisition including all the standard Inquisitor units, and seperate benefits for Ordo Malleus Zenos and Hereticus Inquisitors. Deathwatch are independent units, not armies so they can fit in with a Xenos Inquisitor.

Totally agreed about the Sisters back as a full, standalone force representing the Ecclesiarchy. This is easy, as they have full model and bitz support, already. Sisters as an army have a good vision, when not muddled by an Inquisition focus. Remove the non-Sisterly things from the list (Inquisitor Lord, Assassins, Death Cult, Arco-Flagellants, Stormtroopers), but then restore the Frateris Militia and call out Arbites specifically as such. Add an Inducted Planetary Defense Force Guardsmen (non-FOC option if Inquisitor is taken) in lieu of the current borrowing from IG. And as it's Sisters, the notion of borrowing from SM goes away. So the Sisters book ends up being far cleaner and simpler for everyone, and stand clearly on its own.

The DH aren't enough to be a full force, so that thought should be abandoned. Fold them, along with DW into the Inquisition grab bag. Inquisition can be something of a 40k Imperial "Dogs of War" Allies force with deliberate intent to be shared across other Imperial forces. With the standalone Codices, it makes it easy to say which armies (by Codex) can take Allies. Inquisitor Lord HQ with cleaned-up options and Retinue; lots of disparate Elite choices for theme: Imperial Assassins (many flavors, including vanilla), Grey Knights (Termies, PA, Dread), Deathwach (Sternguard, really); non-FOC Death Cultists. Ordinary Troops for bulk: Storms, Inducted Guardsmen, Inducted Marines, Arco-Flagellants. Again, the book can be much cleaner and simpler, and the mixing is done entirely via Allies out of this one book, rather than everybody taking everything from everywhere and wondering what rules and options apply. Instead, the theme is that the Inquisition has lots of stuff and can be present everywhere.

____

Frazzled wrote:This is the downside of handing a bunch of "standalone" codexes, with non-existent FAQ support.

The question is whether we want 40k to be a static game with homogenous lists, or a dynamic game with things priced accoring to their value.
____

Wolfstan wrote:Just out of interest is there anybody out there on the board who has experience of writing GW rulebooks and codexes?

If Gav and Andy Chambers would de-lurk, they have the experience and a bunch of free time...
____

Stu-Rat wrote:Items should cost the same in all Codexes. Doesn't matter if it's a Lascannon, Heavy Bolter, Extra Armour, Powerfist, whatever. If the statline of the item is the same, it should cost the same. End of story.

For example, let's say everybody on the forum is tasked with having a game table for standard GW gaming (4'x6' playing surface). You'll have guys buying the new tiles and slapping them on the kitchen table. Others will create table-toppers. Others are carpenters. One guy will buy the Sultan. The function of a 4'x6' is the same, but the time, cost and approach are vastly different.

And that's the same with an Imperial Lascannon. They're all R48" S9 AP2 Heavy 1, but the costs are very different depending on which FW makes them for which army. Forcing every Imperial model to pay the same 25-pts for a Lascannon probably doesn't work well for overall game balance. And it certainly doesn't work for theme.

Plus, there is this Fluff notion that not all armies are equally good at the same things. So making an army do what it's not supposed to do should be discouraged by deliberately higher points cost / inefficiency.

carmachu wrote:

Pariah Press wrote: Bottom line on Specialist Games (and I love SG) is that the situation is a heckuva lot better than it was when I first entered the hobby (mid-nineties). Back then, new games were introduced, supported for a few months, and then dropped. Specialist Games are still available, along with their minis. With the exception of Epic, the ranges are more or less complete. Do we really NEED more Necromunda gangs, or a new fleet for BFG, or whatever, to play those games? No.

In what bizarro world do you live in that now, with no forum, magazines, support is better NOW then when the models were easily available, supported in a rotation and such?

I dunno, why don't you read my post and tell me?

Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

Wargames Research Group implemented a points cost system in the mid-70s which is still going strong now in related or derivative products. (Interestingly their "standard" army sizes are 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 points.) It's a system that has proved workable for many hundreds of tournaments worldwide.

It's not perfect and it's based on a simpler game model, but it was worked out by one guy using his brain and some bits of paper. They didn't even have electronic calculators back then. Nowadays we have spreadsheets, stats packages and computer modelling.

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible. The tools are there if GW could be bothered to use them.

Will it ever be perfect? Of course not. It's not possible to account for every possible match-up of unit, terrain and circumstance. It could be done a lot better than it is.

Pariah Press wrote:
I dunno, why don't you read my post and tell me?

Where's Gorkamorka? Where's Man O' War? Those games were dropped within months of their release. THAT was SOP back in the 90's. Yet NOW you can still buy an army for Epic: A four years after its release, and they've been selling BFG minis for I-don't-know-how-long-now.

I do miss Fanatic Online, though.

And at the time the models were still avaialable. They dropped those two games totally, not just pushed 6 months and then dropped. Those are bad examples. Hell space hulk is no where to be found either.

Epic isnt available unless its through the taxed and overpriced shipping store. Same with BFG. But neither game is SUPPORTED. Support means rules, overview and otehr stuff.

BB, BFG, Epic and the rest arent supported at all.

GW should totally re-issue Space Hulk.

Kilkrazy wrote:GW should totally re-issue Space Hulk.

Absolutley!

It would be the perfect 'gateway drug' into 40K too.

If only...

Yes, it is difficult to model 40K mathematically, but that's what they had to do to make Dawn Or War. So it's not impossible.

Dawn of war is an RTS. RTSs are easy create using mathematical models. You give a unit a number of hitpoints, an ammount of damage reduction, and a DPS. That dps is measured against its targets hitpoints and damage reduction. End of story. And even then, the actual resource cost of the units was judged "by feel". So really... Well I have no summation, I can't even think of why you would use this as an example.