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.

 RaptorusRex wrote:

If anything, it should be the inverse. Elites have plenty of good anti-infantry firepower; they don't need help clearing off objectives.

It is the inverse, and it shouldn't be either. In all the other cases its point based. You "buy" the models in your list based on points. They get their damage and durability generally based on points. The ability of the "elites" to clear objectives you mention is also part of that point cost. Why is Objective Control the only thing not reflective of points cost?

Lets use old timey Fantasy army construction rules just as an example of a "good well balanced army" 50% of your army has to be from CORE choices. i.e. Troops. i.e. Battleline. Pick your terminology. in a 2,000 point army that's 1,000 points of Battleline. That's 50ish Legionaries. Its about 140 Neophyte Hybrids (ignoring the 6 limit). That's 100 OC from Legionaries, and about 280 OC from Neophyte Hybrids. Even though they're both about 1,000 points of army.

Yes you said point to point, but elite armies already have more for that points. 400 points of marines troops and 400 points of guards troops isn't the same. Right now guards can score. While marines can remove guards/reduce body count. If they would have same scoring ability guards wouldn't be able overscore sm and just gonna be tabled and overscored in same time

Before their last points cuts, if you counted Legends models, you could do a no infantry all Kroot list. Now it's 1900 on the dot.

Lones Spear x3 (+Flock): 250pts
Rampagers x18: 510pts
Krootox Riders x9: 270pts
Knarloc Riders x9: 330pts
Great Knarlocs x3: 300pts
Kroot Hounds x30: 240pts
Total: 1900pts

 kabaakaba wrote:
Yes you said point to point, but elite armies already have more for that points. 400 points of marines troops and 400 points of guards troops isn't the same. Right now guards can score. While marines can remove guards/reduce body count. If they would have same scoring ability guards wouldn't be able overscore sm and just gonna be tabled and overscored in same time

Damage output is part of the points per model. Why isn't objective control? Guards can control objectives AND spend more points on Marine removal. Because they're cheap. Marine units have to remove Guard and control. Because they're not cheap. X points of (keyword) models should result in relatively close to X Control no matter how many models it is. For roughly 200 points you can get 10 Marine Bodies with 20 wounds and 20 OC. For roughly 175 points you can get 20 Guard Bodies and a Sentinel that can remove Marine Bodies with 27 (7 of which Marines can't easily remove) wounds and 40+ OC. Its the same mistake that gave birth to the Loyal 32.

Breton wrote:
...Why isn't objective control [part of points cost]?

How is it not currently part of a unit's cost?

Breton wrote:

 kabaakaba wrote:
Yes you said point to point, but elite armies already have more for that points. 400 points of marines troops and 400 points of guards troops isn't the same. Right now guards can score. While marines can remove guards/reduce body count. If they would have same scoring ability guards wouldn't be able overscore sm and just gonna be tabled and overscored in same time

Damage output is part of the points per model. Why isn't objective control? Guards can control objectives AND spend more points on Marine removal. Because they're cheap. Marine units have to remove Guard and control. Because they're not cheap. X points of (keyword) models should result in relatively close to X Control no matter how many models it is. For roughly 200 points you can get 10 Marine Bodies with 20 wounds and 20 OC. For roughly 175 points you can get 20 Guard Bodies and a Sentinel that can remove Marine Bodies with 27 (7 of which Marines can't easily remove) wounds and 40+ OC. Its the same mistake that gave birth to the Loyal 32.

I'll assume you're talking about Cadians and a Scout Sentinel.
I don't know what Battleline Marines you're talking about, since the non-Gravis Marines are, at absolute most, 160 for 10. But sure, let's call 160 more or less equal to 175. I'll also assume you're looking at two squads of 5 (MEQ) or 10 (GEQ), not one big squad of each.

Intercessors put out 20 S4 AP-1 shots and 4 S4 AP0 shots, all hitting on 3+ (unless they get Heavy).
That kills 7.41+1.19=8.6 GEQ per turn.

If they want to deal with the Sentinel, they use Krak instead of Frag, and deal...
2.22 (Bolt)+.59 (Krak)=2.81 damage per turn.

So, in two turns, they can wipe either the Sentinel and a squad of GEQ, or both squads of GEQ.

What do the Guard do?

I'll give the Sentinel a Plasma Cannon, since it's the best MEQ killer. I generally see them run with Lascannons, but Plasma's not bad. I'll also assume the Sentinel gets to 18" for Daring Recon.

3 shots kill one MEQ.

And the Cadians? With a Grenade Launcher and Plasma Gun?

Launcher does 1 shot, about .5 damage.
Plasma does 1 shot, about .7 damage.
Lasguns and Sarge's Autogun have 9 shots, about .5 damage.
Total damage per squad is 1.7.

If the Guard go first, they can realistically kill most of one squad.
If the Marines go first, they can realistically wipe most of the Guard OC off the table.
You'd be looking at 2 (Sentinel)+4 to 8 (Guard) OC remaining. They better be bunched up, because one 5-man squad will out-OC them.

 waefre_1 wrote:

Breton wrote:
...Why isn't objective control [part of points cost]?

How is it not currently part of a unit's cost?

This too. You can argue that GW didn't properly point something or that a certain unit should have more or less OC. But it's considered when making a unit.

 JNAProductions wrote:

If the Guard go first, they can realistically kill most of one squad.
If the Marines go first, they can realistically wipe most of the Guard OC off the table.
You'd be looking at 2 (Sentinel)+4 to 8 (Guard) OC remaining. They better be bunched up, because one 5-man squad will out-OC them.

 waefre_1 wrote:

Breton wrote:
...Why isn't objective control [part of points cost]?

How is it not currently part of a unit's cost?

This too. You can argue that GW didn't properly point something or that a certain unit should have more or less OC. But it's considered when making a unit.

I was doing easy math for the concept so big bricks but making more smaller bricks just helps the guard given shots per unit problems.

I'm pretty sure OC is not part of the points cost. Cultists (are also battleline and) have OC1, and no weapons upgrades, and they're 90ish % of the OC2 Guards with upgrades. They're also potentially an outlier/forgotten unit as OC1 on Battleline Infantry is pretty rare so I'm not sure its the best example. I think OC was bandaid'ed onto datasheets generally based on current and past keywords not point costs. One of the easiest places to see that is on vehicles. In this case its reversed - the Land Raider is OC5, while the Leman Russ is OC3. Predators and Armigers are almost equal in price and 3 vs 6. Most likely due to the Battleline Keyword doubling rather than adding 1 as it appears on the Infantry. A Knight Errant is double the OC of a Land Raider for less than double the points.

I never said OC is the sole factor considered. But it is A factor that gets considered.

A unit with OC 2 is more valuable than the same unit at OC 1, but none of the units you listed are the same. They’re all different.

Edit: if I have a squad of 16 Accursed Cultists, lose five mutants, and then put them on an objective, how many points of holding are they worth?

 JNAProductions wrote:
I never said OC is the sole factor considered. But it is A factor that gets considered.

There's nothing that really supports this. Infantry get OC1. Battleline gets OCx2. Dedicated Transports get OC2. Medium Tanks (And equivalents) get OC3. Walkers get OC3, unless they can be squadroned (OC2) or they're Primaris Dreads (for some reason OC4) Heavy Tanks get OC5. Mounted appears to be OC1 or OC2 based on max unit size.

There are a few outliers here and there where individual units are specifically set outside of that pattern, but they're something of the exception proving the rule.

A unit with OC 2 is more valuable than the same unit at OC 1, but none of the units you listed are the same. They’re all different.

Edit: if I have a squad of 16 Accursed Cultists, lose five mutants, and then put them on an objective, how many points of holding are they worth?

Whatever OC they're assigned based on points values then modified by Keywords multiplied by each model. There's already a precedent for units with multiple stat lines and those stat lines include OC. So you count up to 6 of one, five of the other, add it together.

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I never said OC is the sole factor considered. But it is A factor that gets considered.

There's nothing that really supports this. Infantry get OC1. Battleline gets OCx2. Dedicated Transports get OC2. Medium Tanks (And equivalents) get OC3. Walkers get OC3, unless they can be squadroned (OC2) or they're Primaris Dreads (for some reason OC4) Heavy Tanks get OC5. Mounted appears to be OC1 or OC2 based on max unit size.

There are a few outliers here and there where individual units are specifically set outside of that pattern, but they're something of the exception proving the rule.

Tacticus Marines are all T4-clearly that means that they don't consider Toughness when it comes to assigning points to Tacticus Marines.
Just because there's a set pattern doesn't mean it's not considered.

Breton wrote:

A unit with OC 2 is more valuable than the same unit at OC 1, but none of the units you listed are the same. They’re all different.

Edit: if I have a squad of 16 Accursed Cultists, lose five mutants, and then put them on an objective, how many points of holding are they worth?

Whatever OC they're assigned based on points values then modified by Keywords multiplied by each model. There's already a precedent for units with multiple stat lines and those stat lines include OC. So you count up to 6 of one, five of the other, add it together.

So, you want to keep OC? Just make it based on points?
Why?

Again, I'm all ears to hear that "A Dreadnought's OC is too high/low for their points cost," but to say that, universally OC is off relative to points feels like a mighty big stretch.

Should a Rhino on one wound really be able to hold an objective better than 10 Cadians?
What about Nurglings? Should they be able to hold Objectives?

What is OC? It's ability of unit control and hold some place/object. Historically infantry do that job. More infantry better they can control. I see no problem with current system except objectives are magic circles without any meaning. Intercessors good at everything including control, but they are too few. That's why with same ability to control 20 cadians/kriegs/vostroyans do it better.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I never said OC is the sole factor considered. But it is A factor that gets considered.

There's nothing that really supports this. Infantry get OC1. Battleline gets OCx2. Dedicated Transports get OC2. Medium Tanks (And equivalents) get OC3. Walkers get OC3, unless they can be squadroned (OC2) or they're Primaris Dreads (for some reason OC4) Heavy Tanks get OC5. Mounted appears to be OC1 or OC2 based on max unit size.

There are a few outliers here and there where individual units are specifically set outside of that pattern, but they're something of the exception proving the rule.

Tacticus Marines are all T4-clearly that means that they don't consider Toughness when it comes to assigning points to Tacticus Marines.
Just because there's a set pattern doesn't mean it's not considered.

You'd have a point if all Battle Line were T4 regardless of points. Instead you're just misrepresenting my point in a strawman fallacy.

Breton wrote:

A unit with OC 2 is more valuable than the same unit at OC 1, but none of the units you listed are the same. They’re all different.

Edit: if I have a squad of 16 Accursed Cultists, lose five mutants, and then put them on an objective, how many points of holding are they worth?

Whatever OC they're assigned based on points values then modified by Keywords multiplied by each model. There's already a precedent for units with multiple stat lines and those stat lines include OC. So you count up to 6 of one, five of the other, add it together.

So, you want to keep OC? Just make it based on points?
Why?

Again, I'm all ears to hear that "A Dreadnought's OC is too high/low for their points cost," but to say that, universally OC is off relative to points feels like a mighty big stretch.

Should a Rhino on one wound really be able to hold an objective better than 10 Cadians?
What about Nurglings? Should they be able to hold Objectives?

A Rhino on no wounds holds an objective better than 10 Cadians. A Rhino with the keywords Dedicated Transport has an OC of 2. 10 Cadians (I assume you mean the battle line "Cadian Shock Troops" squad?) will have an OC of 20. Of course even the Cadian Heavy Weapons Squads are OC2 per base so A rhino doesn't hold objectives better than they do either. As for Nurglings? Yeah they should probably be able to control objectives. They're not Aircraft. Controlling objectives means a lot of things - not all of which require an "action monkey".if they're trying to imply Nurglings are too wild/childlike/whatever descriptor you want to use for the 40K version of Salacious B Crumb.