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.

 Blackie wrote:

Bitharne wrote:
I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.

Not really, 10 grots are 50 points. A few months ago 50 points meant 16 gretchins (and 2 spared points) which were way better than 10 grots with the new moral rules. Not to mention that the most important role for grots was to provide CPs and now are completely useless for that.

I would probably have paid 4-5ppm for gretchins in 8th edition, even for loads of them, but I'm not willing to pay more than 3ppm for them in 9th. They really don't worth more than 3ppm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.

So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.

Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.

By this logic a primaris (T4 2W) should be 25ish base + weapons. 30 points intercessors? Probably even 35 if a S3 pistol is worth 1-2 points.

Gravis dudes could easily be 45ish +weapons. 70-80ppm eradicators?

How did you come to those numbers.

IMO the value of the first wound is the highest. Basically like your first wound costs you 5 points but your second wound might only cost 2 or 3 and each additional wound you put on a single model has less and less value...though should scale in cost based on T and SV values.

Example.
Grot
Base 4 points and has the weakest possible weapon. (4x"1"{this is where additional wounds get pointed with a scaling downward from the first wound})(1){T and save values} +1{this is weapon cost also melee attacks}. =5

A space marine is something like this.
(4x2)(2)+2(bolt gun) = 18

A custodian is something like this
(4x4)(3)+6 = 54

I mean...theoretically this is how points should be figured. Because it scales the values for durability. You still have to ballpark the cost of the weapon and such but I literally just guessed what at these values for the custodian and marine and came out on the mark both times. I am sure GW does something similar to find the starting cost for things.

(4x10)(4)+80 = 240 Gladiator tank (weapon options put it in the ball park) T8 3+ is a 4x modifier to wounds

Redemptor dread T7 3+ s a 3x modifier
(4x11)(3)+50 =182 (I think these are 185.

Something like a kabalite.
(4x1)(1)+3(also use this section to add for move speed and special abilties) = 7

Dire Avenger
(4x1)(2)+4 = 12

Not saying it's perfect but this is a good means to break a units "value down" when evaluating and comparing units. BS and WS just get factored into the part where you par for weapons. You pay less for weapons that hit less.

Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.

For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.

There's no way to directly compare individual units, as you have to consider their surroundings. You may as well compare makes of tyres to see which has the best grip, but without specifying which car they go on. The ferrari driver thinks a chunky off-road tyre is useless; a landrover owner thinks the same of slicks.

You have to compare armies as a whole. One wound means more than another if:

-It's on a model with high toughness
-it's on a mode with a god save or invulns
-it's being added to a model with few wounds - one more wound on a stompa is irrelevant, whilst one more wound on a marine is a massive change
-it's on a good, all-purpose model (or chassis) which will be used for many battlefield roles (EG, giving marines 1 extra wound each is huge because there's lots of them in many roles, whilst giving obliterators an extra wound wouldn't be so big, as they are much more limited in their use).
-it's in an army which can recover wounds more easily, such as tyranids
(Oddly enough ,with reanimation protocols being done by the amount of wounds, I suspect necrons would dislike getting 2 wounds).
-it's on a unit which can take a lot of models - 10 marines having 20 wounds is one thing, but 30 orks having 60 wounds is another.
-how effectively the unit can get engaged - 20 rk boys with 2 wounds each isn't too scary, but they are the only army with easy access to a transport capacity of 20 - suddenly double-wound boys charging from a big tank with no time for the enemy to whittle them down, it becomes more effective.
-access to fnp aruas - back to orks, the painboy suddenly goes up in value now that there are twice as many pains to not feel.


There is no points per wound, it just doesn't work like that.

Yes, three wounds is the biggest step up probably, but 2W is quite valuable vs throwaway fire and mortal wounds. This is why oldboi DC are nuts with 2W.

 vipoid wrote:
Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.

For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.

What you are speaking about is efficiencies. 3 Wounds is a good stat to have because of the abundance of d2 weapons. you have to attack that from the rules writting side of things...maybe you shouldn't make so many d2 weapons? Maybe they should cost more? In general in any system there is going to be a most efficient option. A smart design team figures that out and just makes sure that all armies have decent access to that option or are compensated in other ways.

Now we need far more D2 weapons than before, though.

SecondTime wrote:
Now we need far more D2 weapons than before, though.

Needs to be a balance. In fact - if you are paying for durability but it doesn't give you anything because it is always ignored. Thats a lot worse than having to deal two wounds with a weapon you paid to deal one wound at a time for.

 Xenomancers wrote:

SecondTime wrote:
Now we need far more D2 weapons than before, though.

Needs to be a balance. In fact - if you are paying for durability but it doesn't give you anything because it is always ignored. Thats a lot worse than having to deal two wounds with a weapon you paid to deal one wound at a time for.

Depends on the cost of the weapons you are forcing them to take I guess. Those weapons are pretty poor vs dreads, I might add. But balance is clearly too much to ask.

Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

Tyel wrote:
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

Yeah, it also gets compounded by the fact that in the competitive meta currently, whatever 36% of people are bringing SM, and 19% of people are bringing custodes. The odds now of running into a list that isn't a W2/W3 only skew list are vanishingly small.

...Which is exactly why the countermeta lists we are seeing have all been basically massive antimarine skew. When you're running into over half the playerbase bringing the same sort of defensive band, obviously that's the kind of countermeta list you'll be running against them.

Tyel wrote:
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.

Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.

This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.

Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.

This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.

Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.

Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.

This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.

Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.

I was suggesting a formula for what they should cost...which is like 7ish. I'd probably give them a minior tweek to give 6's to wound are AP-1 too. The maths are theoretical - they can't be wrong.

Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Once you adopt "a smart design team figures that out" you've abandoned this "X points+1 toughness=Y points" model.

You can't break down kabalites, or fire warriors and "make" an intercessor. You just conclude the intercessor is considerably undercosted. The argument is that the Dark Eldar player can bring dissies, and Tau can bring, uh, Riptides I guess, and this makes up for it. Rather than going "why can't my kab's win a 1-1 fight".

What do you mean you can't break down khabs? I just did. Might not be perfect but it makes sense.

Units that take up double the space to three times as much space and score on 3 objectives compared to 1 should not win a 1v1 fight.

This is why I am saying the first wound is an existence tax - the first 4 ish points you put into a model has no fighting ability that is also the way it should be.

Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.

I was suggesting a formula for what they should cost...which is like 7ish. I'd probably give them a minior tweek to give 6's to wound are AP-1 too. The maths are theoretical - they can't be wrong.

Yes. Yes they can.

Moreover, Xeno, not winning with Marines doesn’t necessarily mean Marines are bad. It could be that you’re facing new more skilled opponents.

40k is certainly not a pure skill game, but there is SOME skill involved.

Ice_can wrote:
Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.

You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.

Today I learned that Xenomancers has never heard of Garbage In, Garbage Out. (As for how GW arrives at their points, it isn't math. I guarantee it.)

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.

You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.

That's NOT what I said your maths even adding in I think unfair points for meaninglessness values shows Kabalites are heavily overcosted as per CA2020. You justified them at 7 points each and said see the math works yet Kabalites are 9 points each.

Ice_can wrote:

Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Today I learned that Xenomancers has never heard of Garbage In, Garbage Out. (As for how GW arrives at their points, it isn't math. I guarantee it.)

I literally just came up with it.

Heres a baneblade for you.

(4x20)(4) =320 +40 for a demo cannon and 80 for a baneblade cannon +2 HB = 460. I think that's their exact points? I could be wrong been a while since I took once and my BSc is freaking out.

Try my formula with literally anything. It is going to be close. I am sure they don't use this exact formula but it also goes to show how easy it would be to make a formula to assign points to units.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Theories can always be wrong, theoretical is often wrong, what you mean is hypothetical.

You said the math was wrong. The math is made up arithmetic to theorize how we could make a formula for points. I even showed and explain simple functions of the formula to get them to match current points for some units. You saying the maths was wrong would be saying (4x2)(2)+2=18 is wrong. Nah that is correct. You have no way of knowing how GW arrives at their points - In theory it could be like this. You can't say it's wrong though. Unless you are a GW rules writter - in which case...I'd sure like to have a discussion with you.

That's NOT what I said your maths even adding in I think unfair points for meaninglessness values shows Kabalites are heavily overcosted as per CA2020. You justified them at 7 points each and said see the math works yet Kabalites are 9 points each.

Ice_can wrote:

Except you got the maths wrong or your finally admiting that kabalites are overcosted as they are currently 9 points as are firewarriors. Now down at the 6 point range they actually stand a passable chance vrs marines but at 9 ie 150% of their fair balanced points vrs marines they are broken.

Oh well I can explain that. A khab used to be 6 points before they were raised in points for no apparent reason. So yeah I agree - they are overcosted. This formula proves objectively they are overcosted. I even stated I would buff their weapon a bit at 7 points.

 Blackie wrote:


By this logic a primaris (T4 2W) should be 25ish base + weapons. 30 points intercessors? Probably even 35 if a S3 pistol is worth 1-2 points.

Gravis dudes could easily be 45ish +weapons. 70-80ppm eradicators?

That would go a long way to making the tables feel bigger for a 2000 pt game.
Next steps would be cut movement especially infantry, cut ranges, standardize charges to 2x base move minus terrain mods, ...make vehicles super pricey too.

In short, modernized 2nd Ed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Systematic points would involve a base profile costing base points with profile mods increasing or decreasing further mods then these should modify base wargear costs and all this should be weighted by faction character and so on... probably not a simple calculation.

 Xenomancers wrote:
(4x20)(4) =320 +40 for a demo cannon and 80 for a baneblade cannon +2 HB = 460. I think that's their exact points? I could be wrong been a while since I took once and my BSc is freaking out.

Try my formula with literally anything. It is going to be close. I am sure they don't use this exact formula but it also goes to show how easy it would be to make a formula to assign points to units.

Baneblades are 470, and you forgot the autocannon (which is more than 10 pts).

How much are their special rules?

This formula is just 4*wounds*random number+random number. Yes, by jigging the random numbers you can essentially do whatever you like - but this isn't proving anything.

Bitharne wrote:
I mean; I understand the affront of Grots being equal in cost to Gaurdsmen...but people really miss just how much better 10man grot squads are with the new moral rules.

Because they aren't better with the new morale rules. Nobody took grotz in 8th for any other reasons than Grot shields and CP batteries. 30pts got you 10 ablative wounds for a loota bomb or other useful infantry unit. Now, the same # of ablative wounds is 50pts (up 66%) and the lootas went up in price as well as losing access to mob up and really, nobody wants to take them as "Bad moonz" to get double shoot anymore when it gimps the rest of your list dramatically. And in 8th, if you killed grotz, nobody cared about losing 2-3 or hell 5 to morale because it was between 3-15pts lost. Now, if you lose 1 grot to morale its 5pts and if you fail 1 or even 2 tests poof, right back up to 15pts lost which was the high end for 8th edition losses. Plus, if grotz were dying, that meant someone was wasting shots on a 3pt model, I call that a win, now, its a 5pt model that does almost nothing on the battlefield except exist.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is an inherent value to "existing" that goes beyond the 1W stat. Things that exist take up space and prevent other models from doing things and can hold objectives. That is easily worth almost the entire value of a grot...because they don't do much else. They cost 5 points.
So essentially the base cost of all models is like 3-4 points and having a str3 trash weapon that hits poorly is worth 1-2 points.
Every additional stat/weapon adds additional points. But additional wounds do not have the same value of "just existing" that is already "paid for" So those wounds have to be evaluated differently.

So Grotz existing are the same value as Guardsmen existing... really want to make that your argument? Grotz went up 66% in price between 8th and 9th edition, as of right now, they gained nothing for it. Your argument is BS from the very start, the value of 5 was just a randomly selected minimum value GW came up with to keep hordes from dominating the meta. an IG player can take 60 guardsmen at 5ppm, Orkz can take 180 grotz at 5ppm, but if an ork player does this, he just spent about half his army points on a unit that is functionally useless. So GW is pricing grotz high to keep ork players from filling the board with garbage infantry and win the game by simply having more models than can be killed in a short period of time. Especially when teamed with the recent development of half hte game having 2+ wounds.

GW values an extra W at 3pts..

 vipoid wrote:
Just a point but I'm not sure the scale would work quite like that.

For example, I would suggest that a third wound would add quite a bit of value. The main reason is that most weapons with multiple damage are D2. And against such weapons, a model with 3 wounds is actually *twice* as durable as a model with just 2.

And also having 3 wounds flips you from having a 2/3 chance to die from d3 damage to a 1/3 chance.

The value of a wound?

To that end, I'd say:
1W = x
2W = 1.75x
3W = 2.5x
Where x is the base cost of a wound. So the basic formula would be [(X-1 Wounds x 0.75)+1]

Multiple damage weapons invariably reduce the overall improvement of a wound.

So lets assume x is 4 points.

A Guardsman has T3, 5+ and Ld7, lets say all his special rules and gear cost 1 point.

Now we can use T3 5+ Ld7 as a baseline for 4pts. This of course means higher Toughness and better saves should multiply the wound cost, as well as Leadership having a minor factor for determining fractions (rounding up or down).

Baseline Toughness increases by 40% per 1 value Higher/Lower. Armour Saves increase the cost by 25%, 50%, 100% (4+, 3+, 2+), or reduce it by -25%, -50% (6+, 7+).

Additional special rules should have their own cost. Deep Strike, Orders, Stratagems, Doctrines, Acts of Faith, Unique rules, etc. These would all add up to be worth a few points on their own.

So lets say T4 = a 40% increase, and a 3+ is a 50% increase. So 4 x 1.9 = 7.8 Now take the higher Leadership of 8 and use that to argue balancing the cost to 8 points.
This in turn means we can apply the following to an Intercessor: 8 points base per wound, multiplied by 1.75 to get an overall wound cost of 14 points. The remainder of his 18 points can be assumed to be his weapons and special rules.

How about a Tempestus Scion? The only change is a 4+ save, so thats a +25% increase, to get 4 x 1.25 = 5pts. Now the Scions come with a plethora of special rules allowing them to be extremely flexible. This should justify the remaining 4 points.

This becomes undone when you reach Vehicles which can throw out the maths completely. I suppose adding additional clauses for the presence of VEHICLE or MONSTER keywords could work.

I would take grats in my marine list for 5 points each just for the board control they offer.

However if you only care about killing in 9th I can see your point.

Board control wins games. That alone puts values on wounds that can’t be reliably quantified. Grits at 2-3 points wou,d be able to blanket the board and basically win via sheer attrition.

You wouldn't be taking grots in your marine lists if you also had boyz for 3 more points.
Orks also don't have the insane shooting of marines to compensate for taking units which do literally nothing.

Yeah I would, I am taking servitors for the same role now, which is just bodies to sit there and do nothing other than occupy space.

Servitors are vastly better than gretchin. You are underestimating how quickly a unit of T2 6+ models which auto-fail morale dies.