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.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm still wanting to hear how these 17 ppm abominations are just going to run my BA off the table with their 12" guns. Can they even kill a predator? I don't think so. I guess on the rear.

TBH Windriders were already one of the best troops in the game before they got Scatterlasers on everyone. That sort of mobility with ObSec is really great. Probably not OP, but still a very strong unit. That only makes the Scatterbikes that much more stupid.

I would like to point out the part of my post some people seem to have skimmed over.

When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept, when the game interaction is at the unit level.

Units need to be costed as complete units compared to other units , to cover all the synergistic bonuses in the unit compositions.

Lanrak wrote:
I would like to point out the part of my post some people seem to have skimmed over.

When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept, when the game interaction is at the unit level.

Units need to be costed as complete units compared to other units , to cover all the synergistic bonuses in the unit compositions.

I agree, but you still have to consider the model-by-model approach as well, especially when a unit can be comprised of a single model (whether that's an initial option or through being reduced to one model through combat). Then there's the flip-side that different units can contain different numbers of models. So yes, you need to consider them on a unit-by-unit basis, but that should work in conjunction with the model-by-model approach rather than replace it. As an over-simplified example, consider the following:

On a model-by-model basis, an Ork Bike might be worth X Points and can be taken in squads of ten. But when it's play-tested as a unit, it's found that they're incredibly powerful against various points-equivalent enemies, so to balance this, the models are increased in points cost.

TLDR? The unit-by-unit consideration is an important step, but the model-by-model method is also required and at least gives a baseline cost from which to work.

To answer the original post again: Having a blanket statement that spans across all armies asking "How much should bikes cost?" is not a fair question because it doesn't cover all options. For example: What if a particular bike model/squad doesn't have any base wargear or options which means that the model/unit benefits from the Relentless Special Rule? In this example, should a model with a bike that cannot possibly take advantage of all the benefits of a Bike pay the same points for it as a model that can?

 Traditio wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept

GW already does it. See OP.

Why does the fact that GW do it mean it isn't a flawed concept or that it isn't worth stopping?

"Bharring, I'll ask you simple yes or no questions: "

Simple binary questions don't work in a game with so many units. You're wrong about this. Get over it. You know you're wrong, that's why you started ignoring my posts.

I love the blatant bias showing with the "windriders should cost 20ppm naked" there.

Didn't vote because there's no "All units need to be priced individually, i.e. guard should not pay 15pt for a power sword, or 25 for a power fist just like a marine does"

@IllumiNini.
If you do a comparable cost for each possible unit configuration, eg 5 bikes, 6 bikes ,7 bikes, 8 bikes 9 bikes and 10 bikes .
Then if for example if play testing shows 7 bikes or over have synergistic bonus that makes the unit massively more effective.This can be accurately be reflected in the points values.

Lanrak wrote:@IllumiNini.
If you do a comparable cost for each possible unit configuration, eg 5 bikes, 6 bikes ,7 bikes, 8 bikes 9 bikes and 10 bikes .

Then if for example if play testing shows 7 bikes or over have synergistic bonus that makes the unit massively more effective.This can be accurately be reflected in the points values.

Agreed, but we would still need a base cost to work with so we can change the points value based on this assessment.

Space marine bikes come with twink-linkd heavy bolters.

They come with twin linked bolters.

Eldar guardians are 10 ppm

they're 9ppm as someone else mentioned.

 Wolfblade wrote:
I love the blatant bias showing with the "windriders should cost 20ppm naked" there.

Didn't vote because there's no "All units need to be priced individually, i.e. guard should not pay 15pt for a power sword, or 25 for a power fist just like a marine does"

I agree here. The one price for all system doesn’t really work, even within codexes, much less across them. Just as a powerfist should not cost the same for SM and IG, it is not worth the same in the hands of a tactical sergeant and a chapter master.

I think it was in the 4th edition codexes where wargear had multiple prices in the armory, one for 1W models, and another for multi-wounds.

It would appear as though, once again, my opinion is winning as far as general public opinion goes?

You could make a poll with a single option and someone would vote for it, and you'd STILL claim your opinion is the public opinion.

 Traditio wrote:
It would appear as though, once again, my opinion is winning as far as general public opinion goes?

Not really. The poll is atrociously designed and a cynic would say it was specially made to back up your opinion and that's it.

 Traditio wrote:
It would appear as though, once again, my opinion is winning as far as general public opinion goes?

Incorrect. Your poll is flawed at it's core, because of the set of closed questions it uses.

The majority of people in this thread have not voted because our opinion is not reflected - that which is "Units must be priced in relation to it's own effectiveness."
You can't charge the same price for bikes because they have different benefits.
If that option was allowed to be expressed, that would probably be winning.

Again, I'm aware it's a probably, but I don't see how you can claim victory on this considering it's a broken poll.

It would be like me asking:
"What the best flavour of ice cream - Strawberry or Vanilla?"

"But Smudge", a commenter says, "I prefer Chocolate?"

"NO I'M NOT LETTING YOU EXPRESS YOUR PERFECTLY VALID AND RELEVANT OPINION"
That's not a fair poll.

Sgt_Smudge has it pretty much nailed. The poll is flawed, per norm and seems designed to back up your opinion so you can, again, tout it as fact forever more.

And then there's your random bias against eldar (and thus the reason for the poll) showing up as the very last option for some reason.

Let me give an example. If I put a grot on a bike, should that bike cost 7 points? Should a biker grot, with an otherwise normal ork bike be worth 10 points? Should a bike cause the grot to more than triple its point value? Also, necron jetbikes are apperently only a 5pt upgrade (tomb blades are 18pt, warriors are 13pts, and yet I don't see that on your list.)

Also, you still haven't fixed the errors I and others have pointed out.

To all of those of you saying that things should be appropriately priced individually:

Currently, this isn't a real option. It would be nice if GW does it, but GW doesn't, and if you price an individual unit "appropriately," then it's going to be OP in comparison to similar things which aren't (thus the reason that imperial guard veterans seem like such a good option).

Fact is, by and large, GW goes the a la carte route.

Guess how much it costs to upgrade a space marine bro sarge to a vet sarge? 10 points.

Guess how much a unit of sternguard in 6th edition cost? 120 points. Not because sternguard cost 24 ppm. No, they cost 22 ppm...and the vet sarge (even though they were all vets) cost an extra 10 points (thankfully, they changed this in 7th edition).

Guess how much extra that aspiring champion costs in comparison to a 13 ppm chaos space marine? 10 points.

Want to guess how much it costs to upgrade that 4 ppm chaos cultist to a chaos cultist champion?

Fact is, GW already takes the a la carte approach, except for some notable exceptions, and those notable exceptions are the "good" options.

So my question is simple: ASSUMING that we're going a la carte, what is a bike worth? What is a jet bike worth? And what should a windrider cost?

 Traditio wrote:
To all of those of you saying that things should be appropriately priced individually:

Currently, this isn't a real option. It would be nice if GW does it, but GW doesn't, and if you price an individual unit "appropriately," then it's going to be OP in comparison to similar things (thus the reason that imperial guard veterans seem like such a good option).

Fact is, by and large, GW goes the a la carte route.

Guess how much it costs to upgrade a space marine bro sarge to a vet sarge? 10 points.

Guess how much a unit of sternguard cost in 6th edition cost? 120 points. Not because sternguard cost 24 ppm. No, they cost 22 ppm...and the vet sarge (even though they were all vets) cost an extra 10 points (thankfully, they changed this in 7th edition).

Guess how much extra that aspiring champion costs in comparison to a 13 ppm chaos space marine? 10 points.

Want to guess how much it costs to upgrade that 4 ppm chaos cultist to a chaos cultist champion?

Fact is, GW already takes the a la carte approach, except for some notable exceptions, and those notable exceptions are the "good" options.

So my question is simple: ASSUMING that we're going a la carte, what is a bike worth? What is a jet bike worth? And what should a windrider cost?

Fact is it IS a real option. Nobody will suddenly have a heart attack if things become priced individually.

pm713 wrote:Fact is it IS a real option. Nobody will suddenly have a heart attack if things become priced individually.

GW would have to rewrite all of the codices essentially from scratch and conduct exhaustive play testing for it even to begin to work.

Knowing GW, that's not a real option.

What is a real option is making the a la carte approach more consistent.

 Traditio wrote:

pm713 wrote:Fact is it IS a real option. Nobody will suddenly have a heart attack if things become priced individually.

GW would have to rewrite all of the codices essentially from scratch and conduct exhaustive play testing for it even to begin to work.

Knowing GW, that's not a real option.

What is a real option is making the a la carte approach more consistent.

OR (here's an edgy idea) we don't do what GW do?

There is nothing wrong with extensive playtesting to get a more balanced system. By you following GW's quick and easy system, you contribute to the imbalances and power creep to which this game is heir to.

I mean, if we go by GW's approach, we shouldn't even be discussing this, because we're looking at changing GW's ideas. I mean, heaven forfend we don't go by GW's approach. /sarcasm

There is NOTHING forcing us to go a la carte. This is Proposed Rules.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:OR (here's an edgy idea) we don't do what GW do?

I mean, if we go by GW's approach, we shouldn't even be discussing this, because we're looking at changing GW's ideas. I mean, heaven forfend we don't go by GW's approach. /sarcasm

There is NOTHING forcing us to go a la carte. This is Proposed Rules.

The same problem arises. If you "appropriately" price one thing but you don't "appropriately" price everything else, then you're making the thing that you've "appropriately" priced, in actual point of fact, OP and undercosted.

Ok, so you have an "appropriately" costed windrider?

Well, this chaos cultist champion still costs as much as a tac marine.

If you universalize the a la carte approach, however, not only is it simpler, but things at least appear a lot more fair.

 Traditio wrote:


If you universalize the a la carte approach, however, not only is it simpler, but things at least appear a lot more fair.

So do you actually want to fix something, or just appear like you're fixing something?

Blacksails wrote:So do you actually want to fix something, or just appear like you're fixing something?

Currently, things neither are, nor even appear, to be fair. At least if there's a semblance of fairness, that's a step in the right direction.

In point of fact, I think that things actually would be more fair, but even if not, it would at least have the facade of being so.

And it wouldn't be any more unfair than it is now.

If a chaos cultist champion costs 14 ppm, then 25 point windriders. All day long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, additional evidence of GW's a la carte approach:

Anyone want to guess what a chapter champion (essentially, the sergeant of an honor guard squad) costs? A base honor guard is 25 ppm.

So what I'm getting is that you don't actually want to fix anything, you just want to appear like you're fixing things. In that case, you might as well just not do anything. Cause if you do anything, other elements of the game that are not fair will appear even more not fair according to your logic.

 Blacksails wrote:
So what I'm getting is that you don't actually want to fix anything, you just want to appear like you're fixing things. In that case, you might as well just not do anything. Cause if you do anything, other elements of the game that are not fair will appear even more not fair according to your logic.

Non sequitur. Basically, all that I'm saying is that GW needs to pick an approach and stick with it.

They want to appropriately price things? Fine. Then they need to rewrite the codices and start play-testing their products. Because a 16 ppm chaos cultist champion with shotgun is not a better model than a 14 ppm imperial fist tactical marine with boltgun.

They want to take the a la carte approach? Fine. Then they should be doing that for everything, and they should be making sure that they "tack on" costs to the appropriate comparable model.

Either one would be more fair than what we have now.

A 14 ppm chaos cultist champion and a 25 point windrider is much more fair than a 14 ppm chaos cultist champion and 17 point windrider. Easily.

Good thing none of us are GW and therefore don't have to follow what they do.

Its almost as if we can actually fix the game properly by not having to follow some ridiculous, half-assed, poorly thought out and implemented method for balancing.

So, again,. are you going to ignore all the examples that DON'T fit your "bikes cost 7 points" scheme? Like tomb blades? Or Eldar/orks.

And what about your "but GW does it!" argument only applies to select things? Why doesn't it apply to everything that GW does then?

Also, comparing chaos to any non trash tier codex is laughable, since their codex is out of date by several years iirc, and the new 7th ed codexes have had price drops on units from their 6th ed codexes. (i.e. why you shouldn't compare a cultist champ to a tac marine or windrider)

Additionally, when you create a multi-choice poll with 5 out of 6 options all being related and positively based on your opinion, of course it's going to be heavily skewed in your favour. The same person could (like you did) vote for several similar options on the poll and artificially inflate the amount of support 'your opinion' gets.

 Traditio wrote:

Blacksails wrote:So do you actually want to fix something, or just appear like you're fixing something?

Currently, things neither are, nor even appear, to be fair. At least if there's a semblance of fairness, that's a step in the right direction.

In point of fact, I think that things actually would be more fair, but even if not, it would at least have the facade of being so.

And it wouldn't be any more unfair than it is now.

If a chaos cultist champion costs 14 ppm, then 25 point windriders. All day long.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, additional evidence of GW's a la carte approach:

Anyone want to guess what a chapter champion (essentially, the sergeant of an honor guard squad) costs? A base honor guard is 25 ppm.

Traditio, how much do you think +1 Attack and +1 Leadership are worth? What about +1 WS, +1 BS, +1 W, +1 Initiative, +1 Attack?

Because according to GW, both are worth about 10 points.

I will pay for Veterans the day they have 2 wounds lime Exarchs.

Otherwise I haven't and never will.

I think bikes are more or less worth 7 ppm and Jet Bikes should cost more than that. Yet this isn't an option on your poll. Why?