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.

Is there a way in which the points that a model costs are calculated - by adding up certain base stats, abilities and weapons perhaps?

No.

If GW has an internal one, I strongly suspect there is a 'Kids Love Space Marines' coefficient that is less than one.

That explains everything!

They are supposedly play tested, which means there has to be a baseline of somekind. I imagine that system is somewhat skewed given The way the BT,SW,BA, and now GK have turned out.

My guess is that they set an arbitrary base number for a certain statline and then set other stat points costs in relation to that.


they probably use your basic bolter marine as the baseline. then they propose other equipment/stat changes and compare it to the base line.

they do this for other races too. they pick a race base statline, setting the points cost in relation to the overall baseline(space marine) and then build up from there.

my guess is also that percentages factor in. they take the increase in effectivness, and increase the points cost by that percentage. If you take this into consideration it can explain some points descrepencies, like why a PAGK is only 4 points more then a tactical marine but appears to get alot of stuff for those 4 points. it makes sense when you look at the percentages.

Grey Templar wrote:My guess is that they set an arbitrary base number for a certain statline and then set other stat points costs in relation to that.


they probably use your basic bolter marine as the baseline. then they propose other equipment/stat changes and compare it to the base line.

they do this for other races too. they pick a race base statline, setting the points cost in relation to the overall baseline(space marine) and then build up from there.

my guess is also that percentages factor in. they take the increase in effectivness, and increase the points cost by that percentage. If you take this into consideration it can explain some points descrepencies, like why a PAGK is only 4 points more then a tactical marine but appears to get alot of stuff for those 4 points. it makes sense when you look at the percentages.

I'm pretty sure that the reason PAGK cost 4 points more than a Tactical Marine despite the huge increase in effectiveness is because they want you to buy PAGKs.

The game/points values are balanced around Space Marines, but there's no hard and fast rubric for determining costs that is known. There's too many little speciial rules and the like that make calculating this sort of thing difficult. While, theoretically, there might be a value for Toughness 4, determining how much ATSKNF is worth per model would be more difficult. Would grenades be worth more on a Khorne Berserer or an Imperial Guardsman?

If the game were redesigned from the ground up it's certainly possible. As of now, I can't see it.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:My guess is that they set an arbitrary base number for a certain statline and then set other stat points costs in relation to that.


they probably use your basic bolter marine as the baseline. then they propose other equipment/stat changes and compare it to the base line.

they do this for other races too. they pick a race base statline, setting the points cost in relation to the overall baseline(space marine) and then build up from there.

my guess is also that percentages factor in. they take the increase in effectivness, and increase the points cost by that percentage. If you take this into consideration it can explain some points descrepencies, like why a PAGK is only 4 points more then a tactical marine but appears to get alot of stuff for those 4 points. it makes sense when you look at the percentages.

I'm pretty sure that the reason PAGK cost 4 points more than a Tactical Marine despite the huge increase in effectiveness is because they want you to buy PAGKs.

its a 25% increase in cost. they better be a whole lot more effective.


If terminators went up 25%, you would want the difference in effectivness to be similer to Tactical Marine vs Strike Marine.

Long, long ago points costs were worked out on a flat mathematical basis - 5 points for a human, 8 for an eldar, 2.5 for a gretchin, 1 point for a lasgun, 2 for a bolter, etc.

While this system had its drawbacks - not accounting for synergies and battlefield efficiency - it worked, and at least made the mechanics of unit efficiency transparent and granular.

Over five editions, the studio have wandered so far away from those concepts they now couldn't see them with a Newtonian reflector.

RT had everything based on points-per-increase.
There was a baseline stat list, and every stat-point was costed. Weapons were listed with set points.
Abilities had points costs, too.

So, if you wanted to make an Ork that couldn't shoot, claw back some BS points, and you're set.