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 do however agree that points costs are the most basic way to rebalance the game, and yet something GW pretty much only does between editions

Martel732 wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
The pirhana wing isn't that great really. People seem to forget that drones are just drones. Also a storm surge is a 420 point model with a 3+ save, if anything it's pretty balenced. Broadsides are only toughness 8. Drop pod marines with melta tend to bake them.

Stormsurge is way undercosted with a 4++ invuln and 5++ FNP. Stormsurge should be 600 pts.

Hey Martel, I'm curious to know your opinion on the Tau'nar supremacy armor from Forgeworld.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

If you determined some methodology to how units should be priced and then applied it to EVERY unit in the game, then maybe. However, I would expect the price of some units to go down along with others going up.

I would like to show you just how horrendously difficult that is:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634211.page

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't see -125 pts for a land raider on there.

Thus making it better than a Predator in every way. Cheaper, more accurate gun platform, transport capacity, +1 Front AV, +2 Side AV (I think Preds have 12 there), +4 Rear AV. Oh, and +1 HP.

Yes.. 125 points for a Land Raider. Totes fair.

You're assuming the predator is appropriately costed. I'm basing that price off of how it actually performs on the tabletop. Comparing to other units that are also miscosted is a mistake. Preds are junk in 7th ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 krodarklorr wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:
The pirhana wing isn't that great really. People seem to forget that drones are just drones. Also a storm surge is a 420 point model with a 3+ save, if anything it's pretty balenced. Broadsides are only toughness 8. Drop pod marines with melta tend to bake them.

Stormsurge is way undercosted with a 4++ invuln and 5++ FNP. Stormsurge should be 600 pts.

Hey Martel, I'm curious to know your opinion on the Tau'nar supremacy armor from Forgeworld.

I've only seen it once, and I heard ten wounds and decided to not shoot at it. I was tabled, but I forget how much it had to do with it.

Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

You'd lose badly, because even at 50 it's firepower is poor. People don't understand how bad marine units are outside the favored few. All the old models are just victims for the Tau/Eldar.

Martel732 wrote:

I've only seen it once, and I heard ten wounds and decided to not shoot at it. I was tabled, but I forget how much it had to do with it.

Hmm, yeah, sounds about right.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't see -125 pts for a land raider on there.

Thus making it better than a Predator in every way. Cheaper, more accurate gun platform, transport capacity, +1 Front AV, +2 Side AV (I think Preds have 12 there), +4 Rear AV. Oh, and +1 HP.

Yes.. 125 points for a Land Raider. Totes fair.

How about a 180-200 point Land Raider?

I wouldn't even consider it at 180. That's a 180 pt tax to pull off a single assault.

Fast moving units that are buffed with storm shields and invis have surpassed land raider based assaults in every conceivable way.

BA don't even have access to such units, though, and I STILL wouldn't consider using it because D weapons and melta. Oh, and shrubs.

 Selym wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

If you determined some methodology to how units should be priced and then applied it to EVERY unit in the game, then maybe. However, I would expect the price of some units to go down along with others going up.

I would like to show you just how horrendously difficult that is:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634211.page

I was waiting for that thread to come up. It's basically a glorified curve fitting exercise. At best he's revealing some patterns in how GW prices things. This tells us absolutely nothing about whether those prices were well designed or balanced in the first place, or whether the same methods can be applied to new units and give balanced results.

This is exactly why the old Vehicle Design rules were intentionally overpriced. It's basically impossible to design a system that accurately takes into account all the possible interactions between unit types, stats, USRs, and unique special rules.

Edit: that being said, this is still a tremendous piece of work and is great for casual vehicle design for scratch builders. Just don't pretend it uncovers any "universal truths" about what things are worth.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:

If you determined some methodology to how units should be priced and then applied it to EVERY unit in the game, then maybe. However, I would expect the price of some units to go down along with others going up.

I would like to show you just how horrendously difficult that is:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/634211.page

I was waiting for that thread to come up. It's basically a glorified curve fitting exercise. At best he's revealing some patterns in how GW prices things. This tells us absolutely nothing about whether those prices were well designed or balanced in the first place, or whether the same methods can be applied to new units and give balanced results.

This is exactly why the old Vehicle Design rules were intentionally overpriced. It's basically impossible to design a system that accurately takes into account all the possible interactions between unit types, stats, USRs, and unique special rules.

This. The only way to balance the points in this game is through very extensive playtesting, experimenting with all possible combinations of units.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

This. The only way to balance the points in this game is through very extensive playtesting, experimenting with all possible combinations of units.

Exactly. Living rulesets with frequent tweaking of point values and clarification or buffing/nerfing of rules is the way to go. OP is on the right path with small points adjustments. GW should be doing this frequently based on data mining of play tester feedback and official tournament results.

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

You'd lose badly, because even at 50 it's firepower is poor. People don't understand how bad marine units are outside the favored few. All the old models are just victims for the Tau/Eldar.

To martel 50 points for 10 IG = 50 points for a Predator.

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

You'd lose badly, because even at 50 it's firepower is poor. People don't understand how bad marine units are outside the favored few. All the old models are just victims for the Tau/Eldar.

To martel 50 points for 10 IG = 50 points for a Predator.

I never said IG guardsmen were appropriately costed, either. Tau/Eldar/Necron push down the realistic value of most older models. Guardsmen should probably be 3 pts or maybe 3.5 pts.

If we're talking seriously about re-costing units, you should be thinking of pushing everything up, rather than trying to push the bad units down in cost.

You'll eventually run out of room going down for the weak units, but there's an infinite ceiling for re-inflating the point costs of everything else.

Plus, if we're going to try and balance 'competitive' 40k, you'd need to drop formation or assign point costs to the formation, like the old Apoc formations. And kill any formation that straight up gives free stuff with a direct point cost, like vehicles and wargear.

 Blacksails wrote:
If we're talking seriously about re-costing units, you should be thinking of pushing everything up, rather than trying to push the bad units down in cost.

You'll eventually run out of room going down for the weak units, but there's an infinite ceiling for re-inflating the point costs of everything else.

Plus, if we're going to try and balance 'competitive' 40k, you'd need to drop formation or assign point costs to the formation, like the old Apoc formations. And kill any formation that straight up gives free stuff with a direct point cost, like vehicles and wargear.

This is probably true. Although the LR would probably still get cheaper in that scenario.

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

You'd lose badly, because even at 50 it's firepower is poor. People don't understand how bad marine units are outside the favored few. All the old models are just victims for the Tau/Eldar.

To martel 50 points for 10 IG = 50 points for a Predator.

I never said IG guardsmen were appropriately costed, either. Tau/Eldar/Necron push down the realistic value of most older models. Guardsmen should probably be 3 pts or maybe 3.5 pts.

I think it would be better to tweak the points of the problem units rather than make everyone else cheaper. Everyone else being cheaper = more models needed = more money needed to play if you want to play those armies.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Wait so make a Predator cheaper? They already cost only 95 pints for an auto cannon on it. Are we gonna make it 50?

If thats the case screw it im just gonna field all predators in an unbound list.

You'd lose badly, because even at 50 it's firepower is poor. People don't understand how bad marine units are outside the favored few. All the old models are just victims for the Tau/Eldar.

To martel 50 points for 10 IG = 50 points for a Predator.

I never said IG guardsmen were appropriately costed, either. Tau/Eldar/Necron push down the realistic value of most older models. Guardsmen should probably be 3 pts or maybe 3.5 pts.

I think it would be better to tweak the points of the problem units rather than make everyone else cheaper. Everyone else being cheaper = more models needed = more money needed to play if you want to play those armies.

The average point cost of a standard army isn't actually based on anything other than what most people feel makes for a balanced game between most armies, and what most people can afford. If armies on average become 25% more expensive, you can play a 2500 point game without increasing the number of models used. If an average army becomes 25% less expensive, you can play a 1500 point game without reducing the number of models used.

Though I'd recommend choosing to either increase the points costs of units that are too powerful, OR reducing the points costs of units that are too weak. Absolutely not both. Because you're effectively doubling the power change you intend to make if you do both.

I like these points adjustments. I'd definitely play at an event using these changes (not that it affects me... CSMs hardly need to have their points costs raised)

I am of the belief, that a mathmetician could easily come up with an algorithm for the base stat line of any and every model. I am not the guy to do that mind you. However, every model has its stat line. It should be easy enough to calculate the points cost of every model based on that stat line.

With this in mind, every special ability and piece of wargear should have a base cost. That special ability/wargear should be worth more on a model that has a better profile than a lesser stat line model. As an example, why are the costs for wargear exactly the same when comparing Imperial Guard models with Space Marine models? The exact same piece of wargear, no matter which piece you choose, is going to be better employed in a Space Marines hands over any Guardsmen. I am sure that we can all agree on this simple point, yes?

Pouncey wrote:Considering the purpose of having "points" is to create a more balanced game where you can have unequally powerful units but still have two armies being roughly equal, yes, we should be using points to balance the game. It's the entire purpose of points.

Couldn't agree more. It'll never be a perfect system, but thought-out points adjustments could definitely be a positive to the game.

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:I would not participate in a tourney where the organizer just arbitrarily raised the price of some units.

Pricing units based on how one feels they should be priced is how GW does it. That's how we got the mess that is 40K's balance in the first place.

If you determined some methodology to how units should be priced and then applied it to EVERY unit in the game, then maybe. However, I would expect the price of some units to go down along with others going up.

I'd agree with Pouncey on this one too. Tournament organisers will often ban, restrict or nerf undercosted models (like Mr Wraithknight) to allow the field not to be dominated by armies of the things. Would it not be better to have them played as the rules were written for them, but paying a more appropriate cost for the power they bring?

I'd say that pricing by how powerful the community recognises a unit performs is a reasonable way of helping to curb the worst aspects of a points based system. It's like doing the beta-test that games workshop doesn't do themselves

Vaktathi wrote:There's gobs of things that need points adjustments. However, points are increasingly a secondary concern. Army construction is so loose as to make restrictions largely pointless, and formation bonuses so powerful, that points become increasingly irrelevant, and small changes aren't going to make much difference. Tossing a measly 50pt tax onto an insanely powerful formation like the Skyhammer isn't going to do that much when they're bringing potentially several several multiples of that tax worth of freebies into play, likewise 10pts onto something like Tigurius just isn't going to make any meaningful difference that won't be made up by cutting something trivial somewhere else.

One could probably go through every unit in the game and make some adjustments. However, without some reign in on freebies and stat-line/special rule inflation, minor points adjustments aren't going to majorly impact the big problems.

You seem to be arguing that the points taxes I suggested aren't harsh enough in a few cases at least. I'm sure everyone will disagree where exactly each formation / units fair cost in points lies. So there's no way to please everyone and this is just my best guess. The skyhammer might be worth more in some cases, but less in others (e.g. depending on if the AM and dev squads are 10 man or 5 man), so saying any given arbitrary points cost e.g. 50pts will not usually be 100% accurate of the value the formation adds.

As an aside, tigurius would also cost +15pts due to the tax on mastery levels so that's one reason I only added +10pts for him as a character.

I'd disagree with your last point. If a model with an increased statline and special rules pays a fair price for them it won't be a problem. E.g. warp talons have a better save and some specal rules, but are overcosted and therefore pretty crap.

Backspacehacker wrote:
Really the main problem units in the game are just the MC, and FMC because their supposed counterpart, vehicles, are very weak this edition. If vehicles were on par with them, we would not see this problem.

IMO There are quite a few ways to very easily balance the problem armies.

option 1) some MC need to be made into walkers or vehicles.
Option 2) Give vehicles a saving throw before their armor is hit.

Even tuning their points does not change the fact that MC right now are really strong and give one turbo fire power is stupid. Altering points is just going to make people either trim their armys to take them still, or out right not take them period which is not a real solution.

Another thing i really wish they would do, and even I myself would need to adjust for this, make formations cost points to take, thats how it worked when they first dropped. For example if i wanted to run 3 WW in the formation for the bonus, i think it was like another 150 points or something ontop of the model cost for those special rules.

Again I'm going to have to disagree entirely that MC rules are inherently flawed. Just look at tyranids! An entire army full of MCs, and no vehicles and they're not doing well as they pay too much for them. If carnifexes were 70pts base then we'd see hordes of the things on top tournament tables. (I'm not suggesting that, just saying it for arguments sake). And if tau riptides became 350pts we'd not see much of them either and lots would turn up on eBay.

I'm not disputing that you could alter the core rules to help bring balance between these classes. But I'm saying points could do this too. If a player 'trims their army' then they are taking less stuff. This means you might have another couple of your weaker tanks to help engage a stronger MC. Our objective isn't to make MCs unplayable. Strong units are still allowed if they are correctly costed.

Regarding formations, I think that not all of them necessarily need a points cost. Well written formations require you to take unusual, or less competitive units that you'd not normally select in order to gain a buff. You're 'paying' for the formation by the loss of versatility. Bad formations (e.g. riptide wing) allow you to spam the exact things you want to spam, and give you good benefits for doing so at no additional cost. I suspect we'd still see riptide wings played even if they offered no buffs at all. It lets you add three allied riptides to your army without having to pay Tau HQ or troop tax.

Huron black heart wrote:

 DoomMouse wrote:
Well everyone's disagreeing with each other over small points. Would it be fair to say it could make for an interesting tourney at least if used?

Did you expect anything else?
For the most part what I can see is each person arguing why their own faction shouldn't recive any point increase.

Haha perhaps not. I tried to make this clear that this was an arbitrary step in the right general direction, not a perfect system. Buffs are so much more popular than nerfs too. There'd not be anywhere near as much opposition if we did the counterpart to this and reduced costs of vespids, mutilators + possessed!

Selym wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didn't see -125 pts for a land raider on there.

Thus making it better than a Predator in every way. Cheaper, more accurate gun platform, transport capacity, +1 Front AV, +2 Side AV (I think Preds have 12 there), +4 Rear AV. Oh, and +1 HP.

Yes.. 125 points for a Land Raider. Totes fair.

Yeah. Perhaps not. I think they're a hard unit to balance when they are very hard to kill for some armies (e.g. orks, daemons) but eldar D weaponary pops them like warbuggies

SYKOJAK wrote:
I am of the belief, that a mathmetician could easily come up with an algorithm for the base stat line of any and every model. I am not the guy to do that mind you. However, every model has its stat line. It should be easy enough to calculate the points cost of every model based on that stat line.

With this in mind, every special ability and piece of wargear should have a base cost. That special ability/wargear should be worth more on a model that has a better profile than a lesser stat line model. As an example, why are the costs for wargear exactly the same when comparing Imperial Guard models with Space Marine models? The exact same piece of wargear, no matter which piece you choose, is going to be better employed in a Space Marines hands over any Guardsmen. I am sure that we can all agree on this simple point, yes?

Yes, I agree.

I also recall that being the exact justification given when an item in one army was not the same points value as the same item in another Codex or even in another unit in the same army.

Fun fact; some space marines get power weapon upgrades for less than the IG do.

Yey.

 Selym wrote:
Fun fact; some space marines get power weapon upgrades for less than the IG do.

Yey.

:: facedesk ::

This is how you break the idea of points being a balancing factor.

Though IIRC those units are intended to have lots of power weapons and they needed to make them not ridiculously expensive with normal-costed power weapons. But then they should've just given them power weapons by default and eschew the concept of chainswords.

The same argument should be made for the IG.

Unless you brought 20 of an upgrade, it will die before it gets in range.

SYKOJAK wrote:
I am of the belief, that a mathmetician could easily come up with an algorithm for the base stat line of any and every model. I am not the guy to do that mind you. However, every model has its stat line. It should be easy enough to calculate the points cost of every model based on that stat line.

With this in mind, every special ability and piece of wargear should have a base cost. That special ability/wargear should be worth more on a model that has a better profile than a lesser stat line model. As an example, why are the costs for wargear exactly the same when comparing Imperial Guard models with Space Marine models? The exact same piece of wargear, no matter which piece you choose, is going to be better employed in a Space Marines hands over any Guardsmen. I am sure that we can all agree on this simple point, yes?

They can't. They have to be determined empirically because of synergistic effects.

Why couldnt they simply come up with a formula to base points off of things such as the stats and rules of a model and then go from there?

Take into account every single stat line and give it some kind of points value, combined with a rules value (FNP and other rules attached to the model would obviously make it more costly) and work with that same formula across the entirety of the game.

I know things like combinations of certain models or units could potentially break this, but it seems like a decent starting point.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Why couldnt they simply come up with a formula to base points off of things such as the stats and rules of a model and then go from there?

Take into account every single stat line and give it some kind of points value, combined with a rules value (FNP and other rules attached to the model would obviously make it more costly) and work with that same formula across the entirety of the game.

I know things like combinations of certain models or units could potentially break this, but it seems like a decent starting point.

It's not a good starting point. Because different stats have different synergies even within a single model.

 Resin Glazed Guardsman wrote:
Why couldnt they simply come up with a formula to base points off of things such as the stats and rules of a model and then go from there?

Take into account every single stat line and give it some kind of points value, combined with a rules value (FNP and other rules attached to the model would obviously make it more costly) and work with that same formula across the entirety of the game.

I know things like combinations of certain models or units could potentially break this, but it seems like a decent starting point.

I worked on/with/tested a game where the author tried to do this. Even among only 5-6 people, and myself being fresh to wargaming, we found out ways to break it in short order.

You can start from a good mathematical approach, but ultimately there are too many variables to base it on math alone. You need to playtest and adjust based on real feedback.

DoomMouse wrote:

Pouncey wrote:

Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:I would not participate in a tourney where the organizer just arbitrarily raised the price of some units.

Pricing units based on how one feels they should be priced is how GW does it. That's how we got the mess that is 40K's balance in the first place.

If you determined some methodology to how units should be priced and then applied it to EVERY unit in the game, then maybe. However, I would expect the price of some units to go down along with others going up.

I'd agree with Pouncey on this one too. Tournament organisers will often ban, restrict or nerf undercosted models (like Mr Wraithknight) to allow the field not to be dominated by armies of the things. Would it not be better to have them played as the rules were written for them, but paying a more appropriate cost for the power they bring?

I'd say that pricing by how powerful the community recognises a unit performs is a reasonable way of helping to curb the worst aspects of a points based system. It's like doing the beta-test that games workshop doesn't do themselves

ITC does an extensive amount of research and solicits player feedback on their tournament rules. It's well established and accepted by the community. I'm more inclined to trust that than one guy's arbitrary markups, which are not based on any kind of empirical data, but solely on that one guy's prejudices. For instance, you apparently find the Wyvern to be only 10pts undercosted. I vehemently disagree. Neither one of our opinions is any more valid than the other's, but if you're trying to impose your view of what things should be costed over my view, then you're not going to get a positive response from me.

Plus, by playing in rules modification instead of messing with the points, people who want to go to an ITC tournament don't have to have lists made just for the tournaments. They may want to change things up based on what the rulings are, but they don't have to. They can show up with a list straight out of Battlescribe and be good to go. Monkeying with points forces players to change lists, and doesn't allow them to use the handy list-building aids that are available.

If you want to run a more balanced tournament, I'd say a good place to start would be to eliminate Allies. The unintended synergies between units of various factions are probably currently the most game-breaking thing about 40K, and also heavily in favor of Imperial armies, as most Imperial armies are Battle Brothers with each other. Plus, getting rid of allies would make the armies on the table look like actual armies, and not a random mishmash of units, so that would be aesthetically more pleasing.

Blacksails wrote:
I worked on/with/tested a game where the author tried to do this. Even among only 5-6 people, and myself being fresh to wargaming, we found out ways to break it in short order.

You can start from a good mathematical approach, but ultimately there are too many variables to base it on math alone. You need to playtest and adjust based on real feedback.

I agree finding the best possible balance would be tricky, but using math to determine stats is at least a good place to start. Then, if you assign values for special rules and apply them consistently, I'd think we'd wind up with a result that's a lot more balanced than what we've got right now. Ideally, the rules for the factions would be living rules sets that can be tweaked as needed. This should be possible, and easier with a good starting base. GW is a long way from there, but there have been some encouraging signs lately.