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 think alot of the discussion of pricing is moving further and further into the abstract and away from anything concrete.

For example the notion that "high customization" is part of the price of a basic model, is poor game and rule deisgn. Giving GW the benefit of the doubt its far easier to assume that such a cost simply is included evenly amongst all upgrade options. Meaning if "high customization" is an advantage every option and upgrade would cost those few points more.

Also the notion of incoprporating into the base cost the effectiveness of added weapons is also silly. Those costs like above should be incoporated into the actual purchase of the weapon. If a SoB flamer is better than an IG one, and you incorporate the cost into the basic SoB, then you are effectively forcing someone to pay for a uber-flamer even if they take a plasma gun. Its poor game design. One must assume an additive cost structure to the rules. You can only "cost" to things that are actually their.

I thought my cost break down was a fair one. It accounts for cost increase relative to % increase to survivability and stats. It only made abstract assertions by eliminating from each unit similarly consequential items, stats, and rules. I do not assert any sort of concrete valuation, but assert a spectrum that shows the extremes of value based on there current rules relative to a more recently updated codex. So we're looking at 11-13pts.

I say split the difference and go with 12pts.

I think next time around they will incorporate the Veteran Sister Superior, but weapons remain a separate. I think we'll see 9 Sisters and 1 S.S. for 125, but where the S.S. comes standard with some wargear.

Pyriel- wrote:
Yes and no.
I´m just arguing about the cost for a (one) basic sister, not a full upgraded squad.
I see GWs tendencies to force wargear on units with a slight discount but nevertheless making them overall more expensive or less flexible.

The sister superior is not a must as you can still keep your dirt cheap 11p sisters without any squad leader.

Other advantages include variable squad sizes and a total control of what wargear to take, extreme customisation is a big advantage in itself.
Imagine if tac squads could get a free seargent and grenades (they DO cost individually 16p each up from 15 mind you) plus could take weapon upgrades and choose their squad sizes.

Again, cost will be determined based on what new faith system there will be, untill we know we cant really determine the final point worth of a sister except for the basic non-faith worth with the final cost being even higher when faith is calculated in.

I think GW will make either squad sizes for sisters fixed or restrict the weapon upgrades to match squad sizes such as no double weapons unless the squad is at least 10 strong.
I also think there will be a bigger relative cost if the squad is numbering less models (if allowed) but a cheaper cost if the squad is taken in full blocks but this will, as with the SM, be counterbalanced by loss of flexibility and unit numbers.

I wouldnt mind 13p sisters with a free superior and a free flamer IF they are 10 strong. It would follow the SM precedence.

That I could see happening, a free superior and a free flamer would be nice even if they are 13 pts each.

Can we move on now?

Oh, and I'm still waiting to hear what the magic secret to using repentia is.

Repeentia should get a feel no pain save and the ability to always strike even if they are killed. If we want to go over the top we could also say they could take transports and for determining assaults they treat their transport open top. Yet that might make them to powerfully.

Exorcists should probably get a slight nerf: Maybe making the launcher heavy3/4 instead of heavy d6. I think it is likely we will get some additional long-range tank killing stuff so a small adjustment to the best tank in the game is probably in order.

Their is an actually fluff reason why the Exorcist shots d6 attacks. No two Exorcist are ever made the same. They are all different from each other. As each organ pipe is unique and custom built. Thus this is why they get D6 shots.

A very "little" while mind you. One melee or one shooting turn and they are running.

Nob does have two wounds so he can take a shot for the squad and not die. It's not much but it does help a little. Now I doubt that would run from taking a leadership check from shooting. Cause even if you managed to get them to go down to leadership 7, that still better then a 50% of passing. On top of that if you fail it you get to reroll it, do the math and chances are their not going to run. As for assault they are an assault army thus it's hard to make them lose in close combat if they charge.

Then why do you choose your proofs blatantly ignoring others given to you?

I'm not, please stop with the personal attacks.

Ah, and exactly how many more flamers and common lasguns/bolters are there in any given army then things like AP3 plasmaguns?
Its like comparing rocks to gold, just because both exist doesnt mean they are equally worth since they have a very uneven impact due to differing rarities.
Again, a 3+ armour save will always be hands down better then a 3+ cover save in overall scenarios plus it isnt terrain sensitive.

Plasma guns and melta guns are pretty common, also their plasma cannons to. Let's not forget about Leman Russ and assault cannons. To be honest I see more of those then flamers. The only time I see lots of flamers is when facing battle sisters. Also in 40k their tends to be a lot of terrain.

And? They run of the board if failing a Ld test hence the 1p lower point cost.

Let's not forget their higher leadership. Also if their above half squad size they can still attempt to regroup. For a 10 point upgrade they can re roll it.
And also I've made space marines run off the board. All you have to do is stay within 6 of them and they can't even regroup.
To be honest I find it easier to make space marines run off the board then chaos space marines due to their lower leadership.

A very bad comparison. Again, please DO think things through twice before replying.
Ask yourself what are their weaknesses that SM devs and retributors are given that long fangs dont have?
The long fangs are a glass cannon, no casulty soakers, one weaponless guy granting the split fire, LD tests needed to be taken after just 2 casulties, no BS5 weapon, no faith magic, no cheap rhinos (yes sisters will get 35p rhinos soon, you can bet on that) as transports and no staying power what so ever.

First of all stop with the personal insults. Sure they don't have casualty soakers but if your space marines and or sister of battle and your spending points. Also to make up for that fact they can take up to 5 weapons and you add a wolf guard to help soak up the damage. Heck throw Logan Grimnar in their and put them in a drop pod and watch them kill two different units and wreck havoc behind enemy lines. They do get cheap rhinos for 35 pts but retributors don't. They can't ride in rhinos. Also I rather have split fire over one guy shooting at BS5.

Pyriel - has it occurred to you that a SoB squad already cost what you are stating?

Yes. The real op comes from the customization they get, its having the best from both worlds.
I have nothing against having the same point cost squads when taken full and with a transport but only then.
If customization is allowed then 13p per sister would be more fair and even then weapon upgrades ought to be restricted.

For example the notion that "high customization" is part of the price of a basic model, is poor game and rule deisgn. Giving GW the benefit of the doubt its far easier to assume that such a cost simply is included evenly amongst all upgrade options. Meaning if "high customization" is an advantage every option and upgrade would cost those few points more.

Whuch is doesnt. Sister codex is old and comes from the time where all armies (SM for example) were allowed maximum customisation (minmaxing). This and the fact that later codices alter things to be more rigid and more expensive unless things are taken in their most rigid forms, in which case the player is awarded with slight point cost reductions tells us that it is highly illogical that this was never meant by GW to be included in the base cost.

Also the notion of incoprporating into the base cost the effectiveness of added weapons is also silly.

Yes it is but this is how GW do it.
The SM tac flamer and ML, both of which are incorporated as free of points IF the squad it taken in its most rigid form (as mentioned above) are being calculated based on the efficiency of said weapons.
The proof for this is that should the weapons be of other types, say a plasmagun and a lascannon then said base cost of the tac would look entirely different.

Those costs like above should be incorporated into the actual purchase of the weapon. If a SoB flamer is better than an IG one, and you incorporate the cost into the basic SoB,

You are right, this is what GW should have done. Sadly this is true only for some instances, especially when it comes to race vs other race.

Look at the heavy flamer prices for SoB, SM terminator, SM stearnguard, etc etc. They are all very similar, the eventual differences can be said are not a factor.
Look at the point cost for the models that can take the heavy flamer as an upgrade then. Its all from 11p to 40p and those are just the ones I can think of out of hand.
It is thus the squads efficiency that dictates a minuscale difference between weapon upgrades, not the weapons power in itself.
Ergo: The squad should (and is) have to be point balanced based on what it can do and what it can be upgraded with, the upgrades themselves are fairly standard priced.

I thought my cost break down was a fair one. It accounts for cost increase relative to % increase to survivability and stats. It only made abstract assertions by eliminating from each unit similarly consequential items, stats, and rules. I do not assert any sort of concrete valuation, but assert a spectrum that shows the extremes of value based on there current rules relative to a more recently updated codex. So we're looking at 11-13pts.

Yes but for the reasons mentioned above, you did not account for the squads innate power level and what it can do with its weapon upgrade. A HF in the hands of sisters vs a HF in the hands od IG simply cant be equaled as sisters will be far more powerful with this upgrade and thus get a higher innate point cost.

What do you think of this?

That I could see happening, a free superior and a free flamer would be nice even if they are 13 pts each.

Yes, even if the squads total end cost was the same or even slightly lower it would bring them inline with the current GW codex trend of simplicity.
*sigh* All this because GW want to cater to 13 yo gaming newbees not knowing anythng about the hobby(at least that is my personal opinion, I might be very wrong and I hope I am)

Repeentia should get a feel no pain save and the ability to always strike even if they are killed. If we want to go over the top we could also say they could take transports and for determining assaults they treat their transport open top. Yet that might make them to powerfully.

Well, that would make them into a powerhouse unit hated by all on tournaments.
Either give them FnP OR a 5+ inv save, anything beyond or more then that warrants a point increase.

Their is an actually fluff reason why the Exorcist shots d6 attacks. No two Exorcist are ever made the same. They are all different from each other. As each organ pipe is unique and custom built. Thus this is why they get D6 shots.

I did not know/forgot about that. Makes sense then even if the vehicle is ork-fickle.

A suggestion then is to give the excorcist two different types of ammo in line with the SM whirlwind et al.
One shot that is like it is now and a second being a R48´S4 AP4 barrage(D6) artillery.
Ammunition type chosen before each shooting phase.

Nob does have two wounds so he can take a shot for the squad and not die. It's not much but it does help a little. Now I doubt that would run from taking a leadership check from shooting. Cause even if you managed to get them to go down to leadership 7, that still better then a 50% of passing. On top of that if you fail it you get to reroll it, do the math and chances are their not going to run. As for assault they are an assault army thus it's hard to make them lose in close combat if they charge.

Still way of mark, nobs on their own are far from enough.
Look up some ork Ld problems being debated here by pro ork players. Since I cant make you see reason maybe 3-4 pages of other people talking can.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/276312.page

Then why do you choose your proofs blatantly ignoring others given to you?
.
I'm not, please stop with the personal attacks.

This is not a personal attack.
On the contrary, you attacked me by claiming I outright lie calling my post "BS" and demanding proof from me!
I responded by giving you several links to results that contradict your own claims, all you had/have to do was sending one lousy email and get them yourself.

You didnt!
= thus you blatantly ignore other proofs in favour for your own.
Ergo: this is not a personal attack, just a simple stating of the fact about your biased choice of what proof to include and what proof to turn a blind eye to.

Plasma guns and melta guns are pretty common, also their plasma cannons to. Let's not forget about Leman Russ and assault cannons. To be honest I see more of those then flamers. The only time I see lots of flamers is when facing battle sisters. Also in 40k their tends to be a lot of terrain.

Plasma and melta shoot one or two shots, flamers, which are free and in fact more common then the above mentioned, maybe except meltas (all vulkan builds, all burna boys etc amongst other things) shoot more targets then that.
Russes only come in IG armies, that is an exception to the general rule, there are more bolters being fired then russ pancakes.

Let's not forget their higher leadership. Also if their above half squad size they can still attempt to regroup. For a 10 point upgrade they can re roll it.
And also I've made space marines run off the board.

GW seems to think the point difference between CSM and SM is enough to balance ATSKNF, that´s currently enough for me.
Also all troops save fearless can be run of board so your point is moot.

To be honest I find it easier to make space marines run off the board then chaos space marines due to their lower leadership.

Not me but then again I make them run by winning melee with them. Here ATSKNF shines through really well, this chaos marines dont have unless you take the super expensive choices that are fearless.

First of all stop with the personal insults. Sure they don't have casualty soakers but if your space marines and or sister of battle and your spending points. Also to make up for that fact they can take up to 5 weapons and you add a wolf guard to help soak up the damage.

Its not a personal insult, you seem to be overly sensitive to criticism of any ill thought point you make.
Again, if I call your point badly thought through when you equal a unit that is in all regards a glass cannon to point out other shooty units crappiness but simultaneously "forget" to mention the very fact that your example IS a glass cannon with its own weaknesses (you failed to mention any of those) then it IS by all regards an ill thought of example.

Deal with it by thinking over what you write instead of complaining that I attack your person the next time I tell you something you wrote is ill thought through because you "forget" to mention the drawbacks of your own examples.

A personal insult is calling another poster bad things or qualities, not pointing out a flaw in their reasoning and asking them not to do it again!

If I give you a bad example saying sisters should cost 40p each because terminators cost 40p each and you replied by telling me to think my examples through before I write them since I also "forgot" to mention said terminator is far better then the sister and hence costs more, then what would you say if I responded to you to stop attacking my person?

Heck throw Logan Grimnar in their and put them in a drop pod and watch them kill two different units and wreck havoc behind enemy lines.

Like this fine example of a point. Think for a second here.
What kind of point is this? You are telling me that a small unit is overpowered if it is beefed up to a 400+ point unit since it will then will wreak havoc behind enemy lines?
No gak sherlock.

400+ points of imperial guardsmen will also wreak havoc behind enemy lines, 400 points of terminators will do the same etc ad infinitum.
Really, think over some of your examples and do think about their inherited weaknesses too if you want them to make sense and no, this is not a personal attack.

Pyriel- wrote:

Also the notion of incoprporating into the base cost the effectiveness of added weapons is also silly.

Yes it is but this is how GW do it.
The SM tac flamer and ML, both of which are incorporated as free of points IF the squad it taken in its most rigid form (as mentioned above) are being calculated based on the efficiency of said weapons.
The proof for this is that should the weapons be of other types, say a plasmagun and a lascannon then said base cost of the tac would look entirely different.

You didn't understand what I was saying.
What I mean is a Space Marines should not cost more just because he can take something, he cost more when he takes something. That to say the base cost of a weapon is incorporated.

It only works with space marines because they are getting a free flamer that reduces the upgrade cost while maintainging relative cost.

What I'm opposing here is what I percieve as double or tripple costing... you pay more points for a model because he has a high BS, then you pay more points because he has a better weapon... but where we diverge and what my point is that you want in addition to that cost the cost of that potential weapon.

Its flawed since once the model is on the table it doesn't matter that a space marine "could" have taken something but chose not to.

Pyriel- wrote:
Look at the heavy flamer prices for SoB, SM terminator, SM stearnguard, etc etc. They are all very similar, the eventual differences can be said are not a factor.
Look at the point cost for the models that can take the heavy flamer as an upgrade then. Its all from 11p to 40p and those are just the ones I can think of out of hand.
It is thus the squads efficiency that dictates a minuscale difference between weapon upgrades, not the weapons power in itself.
Ergo: The squad should (and is) have to be point balanced based on what it can do and what it can be upgraded with, the upgrades themselves are fairly standard priced.

But that isn't the squad incorporated cost that is the cost of the upgrade, the potential weapon effectiveness relative to the squad is part of the cost of the weapon not of the squad. As it should be. Anything else and you'll always pay for something you don't use. Shifting that effectiveness cost from the weapon to the squad, as one poster was attempting, is what I was objecting to.

Pyriel- wrote:

I thought my cost break down was a fair one. It accounts for cost increase relative to % increase to survivability and stats. It only made abstract assertions by eliminating from each unit similarly consequential items, stats, and rules. I do not assert any sort of concrete valuation, but assert a spectrum that shows the extremes of value based on there current rules relative to a more recently updated codex. So we're looking at 11-13pts.

Yes but for the reasons mentioned above, you did not account for the squads innate power level and what it can do with its weapon upgrade. A HF in the hands of sisters vs a HF in the hands od IG simply cant be equaled as sisters will be far more powerful with this upgrade and thus get a higher innate point cost.

What do you think of this?

You want to compare apples to oranges. I am saying you must reduce the two to similar terms. Then compare. You are comparing fully built and upgraded units to each other. That shouldn't come into play here, since we are comparing base line costs.

The base cost, model for model, has to be based on relative power before upgrades. To take your assumption of comparing only fully kitted units, it requires the assertion that there is no consistency between how units are priced on a base line level. That assumption makes the baseline discussion moot.

I say A+B+C=X and X+20%B+20%C=Y, where X and Y are the base line value.

You want to go Z=120%C(120%B+X)+(L*R)/H, where Z is total unit cost, H is # of models, C is the effective of armor, B the effectiveness of shooting, and L and R are the relative effectiveness of other options. Where C and B are smaller values then above. Where Z holds relations to the Z values of other units, but the other factors hold only within the army.

Pyriel- wrote:

Nob does have two wounds so he can take a shot for the squad and not die. It's not much but it does help a little. Now I doubt that would run from taking a leadership check from shooting. Cause even if you managed to get them to go down to leadership 7, that still better then a 50% of passing. On top of that if you fail it you get to reroll it, do the math and chances are their not going to run. As for assault they are an assault army thus it's hard to make them lose in close combat if they charge.

Still way of mark, nobs on their own are far from enough.
Look up some ork Ld problems being debated here by pro ork players. Since I cant make you see reason maybe 3-4 pages of other people talking can.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/276312.page

Um. . . had you actually read that thread, you will notice that what's being discussed there is Orks WITHOUT BOSSPOLES. I believe I mentioned the bosspoles? The ones that let you re-roll leadership checks, effectively giving you Ld. 9? Yeah. Them. They're 5 points. Dash doesn't like to take them, I think he's crazy not to, but ok.

Well, that would make them into a powerhouse unit hated by all on tournaments.
Either give them FnP OR a 5+ inv save, anything beyond or more then that warrants a point increase.

Your telling me if we give a Repentia a FnP or a %+ inv save they will work perfectly fine for 20 points?

Still way of mark, nobs on their own are far from enough.
Look up some ork Ld problems being debated here by pro ork players. Since I cant make you see reason maybe 3-4 pages of other people talking can.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/276312.page

Where the bosspole? You know the thing everyone keeps mentioning?

Modquisition on.
Time for everyone to remember Dakka Rule #1: Be Polite, and lets hit the reset button here. Further posts after this public warning should remember common courtesy. Disparaging other posters or slanting shots-for example attacking their intellect-is not appreciated.

I think we should move away from the point discussion.

Back to contemplating a new book... I think we should discuss on the assumption that the SoB will be more stand alone, without inducted unit/allies.

I think the Immolator will become a dedicated transport option, much like the razorback, removed from the Heavy Support section as a stand alone option.

I think a major weakness of a SoB codex is a lack of fast attack options. As it stands there is only one real unit choice... so what new fast attack choices should SoB get? I think a Valkyrie is appropriate. I think it would also be neat if there were two different classes of Penitent Engines one a nerfed cheaper but faster version to fill the Fast Attack FOC and another more armored like people have been asking for that remains in the Heavy Support choice. Where maybe the Heavy Support one isn't squadronable.

That brings us upto 3 Fast Attack choices: Serphim, Valkyrie, and Penitent Engine. I believe we still need one more. I think either Archo-flagellants or Sister Repentia, could be given fleet of foot or something similar to allow them to move rapidly... may scout as well... just think you could justify for either the addition of rules to allow them to be a Fast Attack FOC.

For Troops, Sisters of Battle are straight forward. I would however love to see a unit of Pilgrims or the similar; they would touch more on the Ecclesiarchy. They could be a more close combat oriented horde. Alternative to Pilgrims, you could make a unit called "Crusaders" that are effectively the Crusader from the Inquisitor's retinue choices but 10 or 20 of them. This allows Storm Troopers to fit the list better.
The radical part: I think Inquisitorial Stormtroopers with only a minimal change from the IG codex should be in the Elite FoC.

By keeping them in the Elite FoC it allows them to remain relatively the same and maybe gain something like the "Inquisitorial Escort" mission, previously discussed.

In elites I can also see the SoB squad becoming a bit like Sternguard but to a lesser degree. With special ammo or something similar to improve the lethality of their convetional weapons.

Heavy Support, I think a mobile shrine that can hold a 20 SoB sized squad, with decent armor and weapons would be appropriate addition; think Leman Russ with transport space for 20. If GW wanted to emphasize the uniqueness of their vehicles the main cannon would be a good way to.

You didn't understand what I was saying.
What I mean is a Space Marines should not cost more just because he can take something, he cost more when he takes something. That to say the base cost of a weapon is incorporated.

Ah, ok.

It only works with space marines because they are getting a free flamer that reduces the upgrade cost while maintainging relative cost.

And a heavy weapon. The reasons for that are less of an individual cost and more of enforcing GWs wishes to keep the game simple and make people take nice blocks of models ratehr then the previous minmaxing (an old relic that is still viable in SoB armies).

What I'm opposing here is what I percieve as double or tripple costing... you pay more points for a model because he has a high BS, then you pay more points because he has a better weapon... but where we diverge and what my point is that you want in addition to that cost the cost of that potential weapon.

Its flawed since once the model is on the table it doesn't matter that a space marine "could" have taken something but chose not to.

Then again, better weapons directly contribute to the models base cost as do upgrade options. Its not good but this is how GW made it.

Look at the deathwatch, loos at sternguards, both are clearly overpriced if not taking their full range of possible upgrades and become balanced first after you deck them out with what they "can" take.
Unlocked options are directly responsible for the models base cost no matter the stat line. Not in all cases but in enough to prove the point.
We can argue what system should be implemented but we cant turn a blind eye to the system as it is now.

A SM tac that can take 2 weapon upgrades would cost X amount of points whereas a tac squad with the option to take 10 weapon upgrades would accordign to GW, cost x+y amount of points.

But that isn't the squad incorporated cost that is the cost of the upgrade, the potential weapon effectiveness relative to the squad is part of the cost of the weapon not of the squad. As it should be. Anything else and you'll always pay for something you don't use. Shifting that effectiveness cost from the weapon to the squad, as one poster was attempting, is what I was objecting to.

I strongly disagree.
The weapon cost is not proportionate to the base model cost BUT the base model cost is proportionate to how effective the weapon is. We cannot escape this fact.
Also, and this really cements the issue, we Do pay points for things we do not use and we do this all the time. GW increases point cost for flexibility and flexibility by definition means you pay for unused abilities.
Take sternguards for example, you pay for an extra attack but do you use it other then in last resort cases? You pay for several different kinds of ammunition but I am yet to see a sternguard squad that actually uses them all in one game. you pay points for the ability to upgrade your weapons to combi bolters but you dont do that all the time.

Take the land raider as another prime example. You pay good points to have a tank, you also pay good points to have a transport. If you use the LR as a tank then the points you are forced to spend on transportation are wasted, if you use it as an effective transport then more then half the points spent on it being a tank are wasted.

You want to compare apples to oranges. I am saying you must reduce the two to similar terms. Then compare. You are comparing fully built and upgraded units to each other. That shouldn't come into play here, since we are comparing base line costs.

But as I showed base costs are often depending on what upgrade said squads can take.
A true comparison would be calculating several scenarios with the opposing squads being upgraded with different things then seeing the average effect this has.

Another example, try to compare a naked SM tac vs a naked SM sternguard squad?
Then try to equate this to comparing a fully decked out SM tac vs a fully decked out SM sternguard. The result will be so exponentially different that you cant claim the possibility of upgrades wont affect base cost. Its simply not true.
It would be true hoever if the upgrade cost stood in relative proportion to the increased efficiency but this is not the case.

The base cost, model for model, has to be based on relative power before upgrades.

Yes but then the assumption falls down due to disproportional upgrade efficiency. A base "naked" value can easily be established but then GW choose to price weapon upgrades practically speaking the same. This leaves us with a new variable in how well the same wargear acts in different units. What is left is the units base cost that must be altered accordingly.
Its a bad ssytem but GW choose it and I dont belive we will in the future see the same weapons differing 500% in cost depending on what unit takes them.

Um. . . had you actually read that thread, you will notice that what's being discussed there is Orks WITHOUT BOSSPOLES. I believe I mentioned the bosspoles? The ones that let you re-roll leadership checks, effectively giving you Ld. 9? Yeah. Them. They're 5 points. Dash doesn't like to take them, I think he's crazy not to, but ok.

And yet others do (there are more good ork lpayers there then dash).

Your telling me if we give a Repentia a FnP or a %+ inv save they will work perfectly fine for 20 points?

Close to.
You telling me they wont? I dont see any prof of that.

Also sending emails is not the best from of evidence. You need to link actually tournament results not just asking a person how well this army did in a tournament.

If you ask them they will send you the tournament results in pdf format, either you look up prof from all sides or just chose to see your own, its really your choice.

Well were going to have to agree to disagree, cause I rarely see flamers.

Dont people play SM where you live? How do they deal with trying to kill nids and orks, by shooting meltas at them?

What about the +1 leadership? Are you ignoring my points? The +1 leadership makes up for the fact they don't have ATSKNF.

Not as much or rather only in shooting which is half the game. A +1Ld doesnt equal ATSKNF in melee.

Remeber beating a space marine is close combat is a lot easier then beating a chaos space marine in close combat. Due to the fact that they have more attacks.

Far from. One extra attack isnt that much worth when you face typical melee opponents like gaunts or orks. If a full squad melees it the one extra attack will mean about 2 dead orks meaning the squad saves 4 points worth of chaos marines and that is only for the very first turn if the squad is at full health. Hardly worth ATSKNF.

Overly sensitive? I suppose that's why several people made reports here which gained the attention of a mod telling everyone to stop insulting people.

The key word here is "everyone"! you are not innocent either, calling people BS would tend to fall under mod scrutiny too.
It takes two to tango mind you so why dont you too drop your aggressive stance towards me and I do the same towards you and all people can be happy about this points discussion?

Heck, maybe we can all come to some sort of logical conclusion even as pretty much all sides of the argument are represented in here.

Pyriel- wrote:
Then again, better weapons directly contribute to the models base cost as do upgrade options. Its not good but this is how GW made it.

...look at sternguards, both are clearly overpriced if not taking their full range of possible upgrades and become balanced first after you deck them out with what they "can" take. Unlocked options are directly responsible for the models base cost no matter the stat line. Not in all cases but in enough to prove the point.
We can argue what system should be implemented but we cant turn a blind eye to the system as it is now.

I think you forget the cost of Sternguard is largely the weapons they get as part of their profile. I won't argue Deathwatch since they are not allowed under 5th edition. Sternguard real upgrade options are standard heavy and special weapons at standard prices and combi-weapons. The combi-weapons are over priced. There is no residual costing being incorporated into the base line cost. What GW is doing and here is the flaw, they give Sternguard 3 ammo types, and charge a premium for each. Thats why the cost is higher. Not because of upgrade options. The discussion has been on upgrades you have to purchase and if they impose an additional cost on a models base cost beyond that of their purchase cost.

Pyriel- wrote:
A SM tac that can take 2 weapon upgrades would cost X amount of points whereas a tac squad with the option to take 10 weapon upgrades would accordign to GW, cost x+y amount of points.

This fails when you look at the biggest example of this, Devestator squads. They are still effectively 16pts per marine.

Pyriel- wrote:
....The weapon cost is not proportionate to the base model cost BUT the base model cost is proportionate to how effective the weapon is. We cannot escape this fact.
Also, and this really cements the issue, we Do pay points for things we do not use and we do this all the time. GW increases point cost for flexibility and flexibility by definition means you pay for unused abilities.
Take sternguards for example, you pay for an extra attack but do you use it other then in last resort cases? You pay for several different kinds of ammunition but I am yet to see a sternguard squad that actually uses them all in one game. you pay points for the ability to upgrade your weapons to combi bolters but you dont do that all the time.

Take the land raider as another prime example. You pay good points to have a tank, you also pay good points to have a transport. If you use the LR as a tank then the points you are forced to spend on transportation are wasted, if you use it as an effective transport then more then half the points spent on it being a tank are wasted.

You can't use the Sternguard as an example. All their costs for their basic weapon is incorporated into their cost. The true price of their ammo and the potential of it is already part of their base cost. There is no way to determine which side of the equation it comes in on.

The land raider is a bad example because you are comparing a tank to a basic infantry model and on top of that it doesn't have any real upgrades. That makes it moot to a discussion that focuses on whether the potential cost is incorportated in the base cost or the upgrade cost for an upgrade weapon.

Pyriel- wrote:

You want to compare apples to oranges. I am saying you must reduce the two to similar terms. Then compare. You are comparing fully built and upgraded units to each other. That shouldn't come into play here, since we are comparing base line costs.

But as I showed base costs are often depending on what upgrade said squads can take.
A true comparison would be calculating several scenarios with the opposing squads being upgraded with different things then seeing the average effect this has.

Except none of the units you used as examples have weapon upgrades.

You are making something so much more complicated than it needs to be.

Pyriel- wrote:
Another example, try to compare a naked SM tac vs a naked SM sternguard squad?
Then try to equate this to comparing a fully decked out SM tac vs a fully decked out SM sternguard. The result will be so exponentially different that you cant claim the possibility of upgrades wont affect base cost. Its simply not true.
It would be true hoever if the upgrade cost stood in relative proportion to the increased efficiency but this is not the case.

What potential for upgrade are you talking about? Sternguard only have one real upgrade. Its over cost relative to the fraction of the game it will get used... you could call that potential, but that pricing is on the upgrade side of the cost not the base model price. The ammo and all its potential is only on the base model side because its already part of the model.

You can't compare fully upgraded units on a statistical level without estasblishing a multi-variable differential equation without atleast an initial 13-20 degrees of freedom. This is what you're insisting on.

Through the use of algebraic concepts you can cancel out like terms to bring two equations into like terms. That is what I'm attempting to do.

While you may end up more accurate, you will end up with a price that is many decimals and forces you to round up or down, giving you a value equal to what a simplified method would find in less time.

Pyriel- wrote:

The base cost, model for model, has to be based on relative power before upgrades.

Yes but then the assumption falls down due to disproportional upgrade efficiency. A base "naked" value can easily be established but then GW choose to price weapon upgrades practically speaking the same. This leaves us with a new variable in how well the same wargear acts in different units. What is left is the units base cost that must be altered accordingly.
Its a bad ssytem but GW choose it and I dont belive we will in the future see the same weapons differing 500% in cost depending on what unit takes them.

This is why upgrades must take their own effieciency into consideration and be ignored for comparing "naked" units. The upgrade must be costed properly. You've still yet to name a unit where the phenomenon you claim is actually occuring.

I think you forget the cost of Sternguard is largely the weapons they get as part of their profile.

I disagree. I believe sternguards are overpriced as they are (naked) and only by taking things like combi weapons as well as HQ attachments they become somewhat balanced.
You cant escape the fact that 10 lone sternguards are overpriced for what they do since no, the special ammunition included in their profile cost is not enough.

but at the same time give half a squad 5 combimeltas and a pod and they can take out 250+ points of landraider in one go earning more points back.
Give them a gating libby and 6 combiflamers and they will kill 240p of orks per jump.

Clearly a conscious design by GW to encourage wargear being thrown at them in order to make them balanced.

This fails when you look at the biggest example of this, Devestator squads. They are still effectively 16pts per marine.

The devs take up a different and rarer slot.

You can't use the Sternguard as an example.

If you can use devs as an examlpe I sure can use sterns as one.

The land raider is a bad example because you are comparing a tank to a basic infantry model and on top of that it doesn't have any real upgrades.

It is a perfect example to counter your claim that we never pay for things we dont take.
In the LR we pay for at least two different roles but use almost always only one of them per turn where one is also non friendly to synergy with the other...but we still have to pay for both.

Except none of the units you used as examples have weapon upgrades.

On the contrary, all units I pointed to have multiple weapon upgrades.
Sterns:
ternies.
sisters.
IG vets.
SM tacs.

What potential for upgrade are you talking about? Sternguard only have one real upgrade.

Not at all. Sterns have a wider range of upgrades then tacs. Both tacs and sterns have variable upgrades and the prof of upgrade options making for better unit efficiency is as I said already, when you compare a naked tac to a decked out tac vs a naked stern to a decked out stern. What upgrade is taken is not an issue, everyone except game noobs know what is effective and good to take and what is not.
The point remains, by upgrading the different squads we go from a base efficiency translated to base point cost to a decked efficiency that is far far from proportional to the starting base cost and thus GW alleviated said base cost.

You can't compare fully upgraded units on a statistical level without estasblishing a multi-variable differential equation without atleast an initial 13-20 degrees of freedom. This is what you're insisting on.

Through the use of algebraic concepts you can cancel out like terms to bring two equations into like terms. That is what I'm attempting to do.

And yet I did exactly that for Grey Knight troops

Nevertheless by using common sense and the feel of the game based on years and years of experience I "know" what is good and what is not, what are effective upgrades and what are not.
This is adequate to point out basic GW designs as I did. If you want true math involved in this then pay me and I will calculate them for you.
God knows it took me over 12 hours to do the grey knights to properly determine their true base point cost and not the 25p GW crap they cost now.

While you may end up more accurate, you will end up with a price that is many decimals and forces you to round up or down, giving you a value equal to what a simplified method would find in less time.

and yet this is what GW does. Do you honestly believe they hire mathematicians to balance new army units?
No they hire people with good knowledge and feel of the game and have them invent up unit costs based on what the unit does, their rarity, their upgrade options and then with a near hit they use the simple method of repeated playtesting to fine brush the cost details.
Granted this fails from time to time due to bias and human error but bummer dude, this is how its being done since it is cost effective.

This is why upgrades must take their own effieciency into consideration and be ignored for comparing "naked" units. The upgrade must be costed properly. You've still yet to name a unit where the phenomenon you claim is actually occuring.

I already did multiple times and also said why, if you keep stonewalling me on this then maybe it is better that we both simply agree to disagree and leave it as it is.
You "know" your theory to be true and I "know" mine to be as well and it doesnt seem any of us can convince the other of the opposite.

Pyriel- wrote:
I disagree. I believe sternguards are overpriced as they are (naked) and only by taking things like combi weapons as well as HQ attachments they become somewhat balanced.
You cant escape the fact that 10 lone sternguards are overpriced for what they do since no, the special ammunition included in their profile cost is not enough.

but at the same time give half a squad 5 combimeltas and a pod and they can take out 250+ points of landraider in one go earning more points back.
Give them a gating libby and 6 combiflamers and they will kill 240p of orks per jump.

Clearly a conscious design by GW to encourage wargear being thrown at them in order to make them balanced.

They are 9pts more than a standard marine. 3 different ammo choices, +1A and +1Ld. When it comes to the special ammo, there is a limited cumulative effect. You will get to shoot one turn earlier than you would otherwise (+1/6), Then you have the the AP3 round which boosts your penetration to preventing about 3/4 of units from taking a save (+50%). Thus without taking the stats into consideration Sternguard should be 60% more expensive than a tactical marine... or +9.6pt. So even before you slap any additional equipments you are getting a unit that is more than 10pts better than a standard tactical squad for less than that.

For a 305pts, I would hope you can take out a landraider. For 375+ pt unit I'd hope you could takeout that many.

Pyriel- wrote:

This fails when you look at the biggest example of this, Devestator squads. They are still effectively 16pts per marine.

The devs take up a different and rarer slot.

But so do alot of other units. Your idea of how points are given creates a system where there is no consistency between units point costs.

Pyriel- wrote:

You can't use the Sternguard as an example.

If you can use devs as an examlpe I sure can use sterns as one.

Umm... way to take it out of context. Its because on a discussion on how cost of weapons you purchase as upgrades impact the cost of base line unit, you use a unit who's predominate upgrade is already part of their base cost which makes it impossible to say:

Is it A+(B*C)=X or (A+B)*C=X? You're trying to compare two dissimilar things with out deconstructing where the costs actually originate.

Pyriel- wrote:

The land raider is a bad example because you are comparing a tank to a basic infantry model and on top of that it doesn't have any real upgrades.

It is a perfect example to counter your claim that we never pay for things we dont take.
In the LR we pay for at least two different roles but use almost always only one of them per turn where one is also non friendly to synergy with the other...but we still have to pay for both.

That's different than what I was talking about. The discussion was on upgrades compounding into base costs. Without upgrades their is no discussion on upgrades causing that anomaly.

There is a difference between paying for something you never choose to use and paying for something you do not receive. A land raider can always transport even if you choose not to. A sternguard cannot always shoot a combi-melta, he has to buy it. Thus one price should be part of the basic cost and the other shouldn't.

Land Raiders are that expensive because they are that much more survivable and only really die from dumb luck or the enemy diverting more than 250pts worth of heavy weapons to shoot it.

Pyriel- wrote:

You can't compare fully upgraded units on a statistical level without estasblishing a multi-variable differential equation without atleast an initial 13-20 degrees of freedom. This is what you're insisting on.

Through the use of algebraic concepts you can cancel out like terms to bring two equations into like terms. That is what I'm attempting to do.

And yet I did exactly that for Grey Knight troops

Nevertheless by using common sense and the feel of the game based on years and years of experience I "know" what is good and what is not, what are effective upgrades and what are not.
This is adequate to point out basic GW designs as I did. If you want true math involved in this then pay me and I will calculate them for you.
God knows it took me over 12 hours to do the grey knights to properly determine their true base point cost and not the 25p GW crap they cost now.

Well all praise your mighty achievement that none can see and none can analyze.

Common sense and feel are qualitative and not quantitative. Its like the guy in Vegas playing Roulette thinking he has a system.

I don't need you to run stats. If I wanted to run a 20 free state differential equation I could. I design rockets and their warheads I think I could do better. I get paid to do the sort of stuff. I just have better things to do with my time.
Don't assume you're the only one with experience either.

Pyriel- wrote:...Do you honestly believe they hire mathematicians to balance new army units?
No they hire people with good knowledge and feel of the game and have them invent up unit costs based on what the unit does, their rarity, their upgrade options and then with a near hit they use the simple method of repeated playtesting to fine brush the cost details.
Granted this fails from time to time due to bias and human error but bummer dude, this is how its being done since it is cost effective.

No $hit I don't believe they hire mathematicians. That's why the units are not priced correctly relative to their statistical advantage and we have disputes over cost.

The authors are people like you who price by "feel" and "years of experience" and that why they aren't closer to perfect. To create a more perfect pricing scheme that is consistent requires a statistical approach because otherwise you have to rely on the consistency of an individuals gut feeling.

Pyriel- wrote:...if you keep stonewalling me on this then maybe it is better that we both simply agree to disagree and leave it as it is.
You "know" your theory to be true and I "know" mine to be as well and it doesnt seem any of us can convince the other of the opposite.

Yeah... I agree to disagree, that's why I have three times prior to this response attempted to move the discussion on to other aspects of the sister of battle. You chose to ignored those posts.

This is why upgrades must take their own effieciency into consideration and be ignored for comparing "naked" units. The upgrade must be costed properly. You've still yet to name a unit where the phenomenon you claim is actually occuring.

I already did multiple times and also said why, if you keep stonewalling me on this then maybe it is better that we both simply agree to disagree and leave it as it is.
You "know" your theory to be true and I "know" mine to be as well and it doesnt seem any of us can convince the other of the opposite.

They are 9pts more than a standard marine. 3 different ammo choices, +1A and +1Ld. When it comes to the special ammo, there is a limited cumulative effect. You will get to shoot one turn earlier than you would otherwise (+1/6), Then you have the the AP3 round which boosts your penetration to preventing about 3/4 of units from taking a save (+50%). Thus without taking the stats into consideration Sternguard should be 60% more expensive than a tactical marine... or +9.6pt. So even before you slap any additional equipments you are getting a unit that is more than 10pts better than a standard tactical squad for less than that.

Not quite. you make a flaw in only taking clean mathematical numbers into consideration. The metagame consists of heavily mechanised armies, thus in itseld the AP3 ammo is fal less useful then you give it credit.
The extra A is wasted on a unit that must stay out of melee at all costs (another perfect example that you must pay for abilities you never even want to use) and the unit steals an elite slot, hardly comparable to a common tac.
Thus the 60% bigger cost it flawed right from the start.

Also this highlites my point exactly, many units arent balanced naked as tehy need upgrades to truly be useful, the sternguards is a prime example of that.

But so do alot of other units. Your idea of how points are given creates a system where there is no consistency between units point costs.

It takes into consideration important facts like meta game, overall army weaknesses etc. As pointed out above your clean mathematical application to base points are flawed.

Umm... way to take it out of context. Its because on a discussion on how cost of weapons you purchase as upgrades impact the cost of base line unit, you use a unit who's predominate upgrade is already part of their base cost which makes it impossible to say:

Is it A+(B*C)=X or (A+B)*C=X? You're trying to compare two dissimilar things with out deconstructing where the costs actually originate.

Not at all.
I point out the fact base cost of the majority of units stems from what upgrades they can take. Again, it is the base cost not the upgrade cost that truly highlites the units efficiency.

That's different than what I was talking about. The discussion was on upgrades compounding into base costs.

sorry but nope. you claimed we dont pay for things we arent using and I gave you by now two perfect counter examples., hardly something that can all of a sudden be made into an irrelevant thing wouldnt you say?
You cant claim something and then when a counter is presented say it is "different".

There is a difference between paying for something you never choose to use and paying for something you do not receive. A land raider can always transport even if you choose not to. A sternguard cannot always shoot a combi-melta, he has to buy it. Thus one price should be part of the basic cost and the other shouldn't.

both true and false.
The land raider MUST always pay for multiple applications, you have no choice to ditch the transport option and pay less for it no matter how you use it.
The sterns are as I already shown, only balanced when they take upgrades, not "naked".

Land Raiders are that expensive because they are that much more survivable and only really die from dumb luck or the enemy diverting more than 250pts worth of heavy weapons to shoot it.

If that was true I would be a happy camper.
With all the cheap weapons that treat the land raider as it was a dreadnought and all the cheap melta weapons in pods or fast units like bikes (again, meta game), the LR has a hard time surviving.
It is only when you take many of them that you upset the meta game balance. Another interesting concept to take into consideration when point balancing sisters units like troops or as I previously mentioned, penitents. One is weak, nine are over the top. Hard to balance such a unit.

I don't need you to run stats. If I wanted to run a 20 free state differential equation I could. I design rockets and their warheads I think I could do better. I get paid to do the sort of stuff. I just have better things to do with my time.
Don't assume you're the only one with experience either.

Where did I claim I am the only one with experience?
Feel free to visit the bnc GK codex thread if you want to see stats applied to a units base cost.

As for you being "better" because you are a rocket mathematician and dont deign to bend down and use "common sense"? lol
I can see your point though , its easy being high and mighty as knowledge tends to do that, I should know, I am at base a geophysicist in case you think you are dealing with a 14yo blunt but please, comparing who has "the biggest" really doesnt fit into this thread.

Common sense (knowledge of the game that statistical math runs) is part of the concept of balance. Naked math will not get any better result if you turn the blind eye to anything other then base and unupgraded unit vs unit cases using a table devoid of any terrain.
If anything has thought me a good lesson it is that math without thought will kill people outright in the field of geophysics.

Mix the two together though (math and that other thing you so seem to loathe) and you can start achieving real balance.

No $hit I don't believe they hire mathematicians. That's why the units are not priced correctly relative to their statistical advantage and we have disputes over cost.

Hehe, but then mathematicians wouldnt cut it either, gaming mathematicians would do a better job but what imho has screwed up codex balance the most over the years was simple common human bias. What I like to call the "Haines effect".

The authors are people like you who price by "feel" and "years of experience" and that why they aren't closer to perfect. To create a more perfect pricing scheme that is consistent requires a statistical approach because otherwise you have to rely on the consistency of an individuals gut feeling.

Nice to see I am not the only one taking things out of context here. Please refrain from placing qualities upon me without proper knowledge of my person or the ways I usually come to conclusions.

Yeah... I agree to disagree, that's why I have three times prior to this response attempted to move the discussion on to other aspects of the sister of battle. You chose to ignored those posts.

I must have missed your subtle attempts then. Please do it again then and we can move on to whatever you feel is important.

I already did multiple times and also said why, if you keep stonewalling me on this then maybe it is better that we both simply agree to disagree and leave it as it is.
You "know" your theory to be true and I "know" mine to be as well and it doesnt seem any of us can convince the other of the opposite.

Touche my dear Von Braun
It really seems we both completely disregard each others examples then.
Maybe this thread should be better of dying then having a mathematician and a physicist comparing dick sizes in it but then again, I like to argue with someone who has brains. Anyways, I dont care since absolutely nothing seems to be moving forward Well, its your call Mr genious

Pyriel- wrote:
Not quite. you make a flaw in only taking clean mathematical numbers into consideration. The metagame consists of heavily mechanised armies, thus in itseld the AP3 ammo is fal less useful then you give it credit.
The extra A is wasted on a unit that must stay out of melee at all costs (another perfect example that you must pay for abilities you never even want to use) and the unit steals an elite slot, hardly comparable to a common tac.
Thus the 60% bigger cost it flawed right from the start.

You are creating an illogical system. Metagame is a fancy way of saying abstract system. Your point becomes moot by virtue of selective targetting. Would they be wasted if they shot at a target they were not intended for - YES- so no one would ever shoot at that target. Shooting a lascannon at a gaunt is a waste, but no one would ever use it as justification for making a lascannon cheaper. You're using the inverse arguement but with the same reasoning.

You can't make absolute and relativistic arguments at the same time. The pricing can either be based on "what it is" or "what it can be"... concrete or potential. If you judge on both you will have infinite arguements to justify to the contrary.

Pyriel- wrote:
Also this highlites my point exactly, many units arent balanced naked as tehy need upgrades to truly be useful, the sternguards is a prime example of that.

Specialized usefulness is not the same as "usefulness" and usefulness is not critical to pricing. Otherwise a useless unit should be zero points.

I use naked Sternguard all the time and they justify their own points.

Pyriel- wrote:

But so do alot of other units. Your idea of how points are given creates a system where there is no consistency between units point costs.

It takes into consideration important facts like meta game, overall army weaknesses etc. As pointed out above your clean mathematical application to base points are flawed.

This is a different issue than you've brought up before. What you discuss here is that units are scored relative to the army as a whole, that these point values have minimal if any representation for comparison to other armies?

You are aserting GW does this. If at all true this can only be true to a very small degree.

Pyriel- wrote:
...
I point out the fact base cost of the majority of units stems from what upgrades they can take. Again, it is the base cost not the upgrade cost that truly highlites the units efficiency.

I point out the fact that the base cost of the majority of units represents their relative effectiveness to other units as they are in their base configuration. That their upgraded cost represents their upgraded effectiveness relative to other units.

In most basic terms I say:
2+2=4
You say:
3+1=4

Pyriel- wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:That's different than what I was talking about. The discussion was on upgrades compounding into base costs.

sorry but nope. you claimed we dont pay for things we arent using and I gave you by now two perfect counter examples., hardly something that can all of a sudden be made into an irrelevant thing wouldnt you say?
You cant claim something and then when a counter is presented say it is "different".

I didn't claim anything different, you misunderstood.

There are two different ideas that you are mixing up. "You don't pay for things you don't take" and "You don't pay for things you don't use". They are not the same.

I assert "you don't pay for things you don't take." That is what I always asserted. You use sternguard and a landraider as an example. I showed that sternguard are apporpriately priced without adjustments for the efficiencies gained from upgrades, thus showing that the cost of an upgraded sternguards cost come from the improved effectiveness due to the cost of the upgrade. I also pointed out that the landraider doesn't work as an example for your arguement that potential upgrade efficiency gains raise the base price, because it had no real upgrades to take. I then humored your assertion that the potential of carrying a valuable unit raised its cost. This still doesn't reflect your original assertion that a base cost is a result of potential gians due to upgrades. The simple counter point to the assertion of the Land Raiders potential measured from its possible embarked unit is that it is 250pts effective without any unit in it.

Pyriel- wrote:

There is a difference between paying for something you never choose to use and paying for something you do not receive. A land raider can always transport even if you choose not to. A sternguard cannot always shoot a combi-melta, he has to buy it. Thus one price should be part of the basic cost and the other shouldn't.

both true and false.
The land raider MUST always pay for multiple applications, you have no choice to ditch the transport option and pay less for it no matter how you use it.
The sterns are as I already shown, only balanced when they take upgrades, not "naked".

Yes I "MUST always pay for multiple applications". I always have that ability. I always pay for it. I always possess the option to transport. I rarely actually use it.

I only use my sternguard naked and they work. By your assertion they shouldn't work.

I think part of the problem is what you define as an "upgrade". Transport capacity is not an upgrade. It an inherent component of the units profile. An "upgrade" is anything purchased beyond the basic profile. Thus a discussion on how upgrades effect a basic cost, can not include a unit that has no substantial upgrades.

Pyriel- wrote:

Land Raiders are that expensive because they are that much more survivable and only really die from dumb luck or the enemy diverting more than 250pts worth of heavy weapons to shoot it.

If that was true I would be a happy camper.
With all the cheap weapons that treat the land raider as it was a dreadnought and all the cheap melta weapons in pods or fast units like bikes (again, meta game), the LR has a hard time surviving.
It is only when you take many of them that you upset the meta game balance. Another interesting concept to take into consideration when point balancing sisters units like troops or as I previously mentioned, penitents. One is weak, nine are over the top. Hard to balance such a unit.

It is true. I use two of mine sucessfully all the time. You sight cheap weapons, cheap meltas in pods or fast attack units. If its a single weapon in a non-dedicated squad taking down a landraider, thats luck. If its a unit built for taking down a Land Raider than for more often than not its pricey.

Does anyone take nine Penitent Engines? I've never seen it. But its proof why units must be priced based on their individual profile and not on unintentional "synergy". If a someone takes 9 P.E. someone should be able to take 9 times whats normally needed to take one out. IF it doesn't work like that, it is not an "upset meta game" its bad game design.

Pyriel- wrote:
As for you being "better" because you are a rocket mathematician and dont deign to bend down and use "common sense"? lol
I can see your point though , its easy being high and mighty as knowledge tends to do that, I should know, I am at base a geophysicist in case you think you are dealing with a 14yo blunt but please, comparing who has "the biggest" really doesnt fit into this thread.

I'm not doing that. I was only stating why I wouldn't need to pay you to do math for me after you asserted a predominant authority of understanding.

Pyriel- wrote:
Common sense (knowledge of the game that statistical math runs) is part of the concept of balance. Naked math will not get any better result if you turn the blind eye to anything other then base and unupgraded unit vs unit cases using a table devoid of any terrain.
If anything has thought me a good lesson it is that math without thought will kill people outright in the field of geophysics.

I guess this is why we disagree. I think the base price allows one to compare to other base prices. To follow what you assert requires one to believe a higher degree of accounting of unit capabilities and the fact that direct upgraded tied costs are inherently unfare.

From one science minded person to another, you have to grasp the concept of being able to simplify equations. That is what I'm doing. You are creating an uncontrolled environment to base the unit cost on. You have no absolute and concrete means for establishing the baseline that can be repeated. Your method models through observing statistical trends across a number of scenarios to generate the data needed to then determine a point value. The arbitrary aspect that is the weak point to it is that the scenarios can be quite subjective and without defining methodology it is more theoretical than pracitcal.

If you define a base line and price incrementally beyond it based on statistical improvements you have a more accurate pricing. The precision might not be there, but the systematic appraoch leaves it open to consistent repeatability without substantial subjective or qualitative measures.

Pyriel- wrote:
Mix the two together though (math and that other thing you so seem to loathe) and you can start achieving real balance.

I am mixing the two, but its where I separate them. The quantitative aspect is incorporated into the base cost thus allowing comparisons. The upgrades that you pay for to get the improved efficiency are where the subjectiveness comes in. At the base level the capabilities of the unit are at its most straight forward and so should the cost. How much a piece of equipment is likely to improve the unit is something I leave for pricing the upgrade.

Pyriel- wrote:

The authors are people like you who price by "feel" and "years of experience" and that why they aren't closer to perfect. To create a more perfect pricing scheme that is consistent requires a statistical approach because otherwise you have to rely on the consistency of an individuals gut feeling.

Nice to see I am not the only one taking things out of context here. Please refrain from placing qualities upon me without proper knowledge of my person or the ways I usually come to conclusions.

You just took that out of context. It was an allusion to your remark. You made a comment:

Pyriel- wrote:
No they hire people with good knowledge and feel of the game and have them invent up unit costs based on what the unit does, their rarity, their upgrade options...

Because you said it like it was a good thing after balking at the notion of mathematical interpretation. I was making the point, that the reason you say is GW's advantage, is the reason for point inconsistencies.

Pyriel- wrote:

Yeah... I agree to disagree, that's why I have three times prior to this response attempted to move the discussion on to other aspects of the sister of battle. You chose to ignored those posts.

I must have missed your subtle attempts then. Please do it again then and we can move on to whatever you feel is important.

THIS:

aka_mythos wrote:I think we should move away from the point discussion.

Back to contemplating a new book... I think we should discuss on the assumption that the SoB will be more stand alone, without inducted unit/allies.

I think the Immolator will become a dedicated transport option, much like the razorback, removed from the Heavy Support section as a stand alone option.

I think a major weakness of a SoB codex is a lack of fast attack options. As it stands there is only one real unit choice... so what new fast attack choices should SoB get? I think a Valkyrie is appropriate. I think it would also be neat if there were two different classes of Penitent Engines one a nerfed cheaper but faster version to fill the Fast Attack FOC and another more armored like people have been asking for that remains in the Heavy Support choice. Where maybe the Heavy Support one isn't squadronable.

That brings us upto 3 Fast Attack choices: Serphim, Valkyrie, and Penitent Engine. I believe we still need one more. I think either Archo-flagellants or Sister Repentia, could be given fleet of foot or something similar to allow them to move rapidly... may scout as well... just think you could justify for either the addition of rules to allow them to be a Fast Attack FOC.

For Troops, Sisters of Battle are straight forward. I would however love to see a unit of Pilgrims or the similar; they would touch more on the Ecclesiarchy. They could be a more close combat oriented horde. Alternative to Pilgrims, you could make a unit called "Crusaders" that are effectively the Crusader from the Inquisitor's retinue choices but 10 or 20 of them. This allows Storm Troopers to fit the list better.
The radical part: I think Inquisitorial Stormtroopers with only a minimal change from the IG codex should be in the Elite FoC.

By keeping them in the Elite FoC it allows them to remain relatively the same and maybe gain something like the "Inquisitorial Escort" mission, previously discussed.

In elites I can also see the SoB squad becoming a bit like Sternguard but to a lesser degree. With special ammo or something similar to improve the lethality of their convetional weapons.

Heavy Support, I think a mobile shrine that can hold a 20 SoB sized squad, with decent armor and weapons would be appropriate addition; think Leman Russ with transport space for 20. If GW wanted to emphasize the uniqueness of their vehicles the main cannon would be a good way to.

Pyriel- wrote:

I already did multiple times and also said why, if you keep stonewalling me on this then maybe it is better that we both simply agree to disagree and leave it as it is.
You "know" your theory to be true and I "know" mine to be as well and it doesnt seem any of us can convince the other of the opposite.

Touche my dear Von Braun
It really seems we both completely disregard each others examples then.
Maybe this thread should be better of dying then having a mathematician and a physicist comparing dick sizes in it but then again, I like to argue with someone who has brains. Anyways, I dont care since absolutely nothing seems to be moving forward Well, its your call Mr genious

Just remember you whipped it out first, pervert. I never said yours was untrue. Just too complex to adequetly mathematically model to create a consistent system that allows direct comparison. I think there are examples where some of your assertions do hold true, just that your examples didn't hit on those.

I sincerely believe your methodology could establish a more precise basis for point values, but that the means of building the statistical basis for getting your "gut feeling" leaves something to be desired. Some one might be able to turn lead into gold, but unless he can teach someone else to do so to the same quality and repeatability, there is no consistency and it loses value for it.

You are creating an illogical system. Metagame is a fancy way of saying abstract system. Your point becomes moot by virtue of selective targetting. Would they be wasted if they shot at a target they were not intended for - YES- so no one would ever shoot at that target. Shooting a lascannon at a gaunt is a waste, but no one would ever use it as justification for making a lascannon cheaper. You're using the inverse arguement but with the same reasoning.

You can't make absolute and relativistic arguments at the same time. The pricing can either be based on "what it is" or "what it can be"... concrete or potential. If you judge on both you will have infinite arguements to justify to the contrary.

There is nothing illogical about it. Meta game exists and people even rely heavily on it in army list constructions. It is often the player with the best understanding of meta game that goes to the top places in tournaments.
Yes it is abstract but also not so since it is governed by tendencies that are based on what rules make what types of units more powerful then the others.
Current meta game does exist, and I say this since it is tangeable and can easily be proven by looking at general top lists from various tournaments. To disregard from this and only use "clean" math is to shoot oneself in the foot.

As you said before, you wanted to apply a base point cost to for example AP3 bolters based on how much points they can earn back. So far this is a perfectly logical approach, claiming a squa in the open with AP3 weapons can be this and that much more worth vs another squad in the open.
Sadly the abstracts of meta gaming, that is, the looks of the average list based on the current rules make this non valid and unless these things are also taken into consideration the result will be flawed.

It is slightly different from your claim that "Would they be wasted if they shot at a target they were not intended for", this I agree to and this is a perfect example of pricing units like eldar banshees (they arent that good vs only armour). The difference is though that a certain unit isnt used or not used vs a specific target but CAN a certain unit be used vs a specific target?
In other words, CAN the AP3 weapon (can, as in differ from being a "choice") be used vs an enemy unit in the average game.
The answer to that is found in the meta game and as for the sternguard AP3 bolter ammo it is a clear "no" since more armies are mechanised, those that arent are to far away from the AP3 bolters to be targeted and then there is the issue of terrain saves and of unit upgrades that lets the AP3 weapon get into range fast (pods for example but then again we are no longer talking about a naked unit).

All these combine into:
Can it be used?
What general turn can it be expected to be used?
Against what percentage of average opponents/armies/rces can it be used during 5:ed rules?
What is there on average that dampens the effectiveness of the upgrade (terrain, LOS, own army composition...hordes LOS coverign them selves etc)

All these are variables, not as abstract as first thought but governed by rules that steer the meta game and thus can be calculated even by a guesstimate (experience and common sense).


I get your point however, taking a lacscannon dev is always a chance since you might as well meet only infantry orks BUT there are trends that alter said chance (most armies being mech for example) that can either make taking such a unit/upgrade more or less of a bad chance and therefore either base unit cost or upgrade cost ought to be priced accordingly.

Specialized usefulness is not the same as "usefulness" and usefulness is not critical to pricing. Otherwise a useless unit should be zero points.

I use naked Sternguard all the time and they justify their own points.

We simply have to disagree on this it seems.
Besides, I have rarely made naked sterns earn their points back. Now when I think about it, I have never done that actually. Not without some sort of upgrade like transport or weapons but then they are no longer naked.

How do you manage to use naked foot sternguards and do it successfully?

This is a different issue than you've brought up before. What you discuss here is that units are scored relative to the army as a whole, that these point values have minimal if any representation for comparison to other armies?

You are aserting GW does this. If at all true this can only be true to a very small degree.

We both have a point here I think, I found examples of both instances in 40k units. Only in the SM codex we have things like sternguards and LoTD, both which are (imo) priced very differently with differing reasons for the point costs behind them. Maybe two different game designers "invented" those units without communicating to each other.
One seems to follow your thoughts and the other mine.

I point out the fact that the base cost of the majority of units represents their relative effectiveness to other units as they are in their base configuration. That their upgraded cost represents their upgraded effectiveness relative to other units.

In most basic terms I say:
2+2=4
You say:
3+1=4

I get your point.
I still think mine is true though but as I also mentioned, I found examples that support you as well.

As for the 1+3 = 4 I firmly believe in this. All 40k armies revolve around this concept, their very design is base on this to an extended degree. You are forced to take certain slots (often translated into units for practical purposes) more then others and some units become weaker unless other types of units are taken in support.

Look at this:
Stormboys = 1
Slugga boys = 1

stormboys + stormboys + stormboys = 3
Slugga boys = 1
Slugga boys + slugga boys = 3
Slugga boys + slugga boys + stormboys = 5


The second "abstract" thing you must take into consideration when pricing units accordingly (clean math will ruin it for you here) and where you are forced to take the variables of meta game into consideration is "multiples".

Landraider = 1
2X andraider = 3
3X landraider = 6

We can apply this to penitents of current.
1p = 0.7 (under powered)
3p = 1
9p = 15

Its just an example, the numbers do not mirror true worth and are there to drive forth the point.
So there is a tricly issue balancing units so that they become balanced naked, balance their upgrade prices so they still remain balanced loaded AND then ruin balance so that an average multiple becomes balanced and all this relies on both math and meta game.

In the case of penitents, where do we strike a balance, at 1 penitent? At 4 penitents? Where do they become underpowered, balanced and overpowered?

I assert "you don't pay for things you don't take." That is what I always asserted. You use sternguard and a landraider as an example. I showed that sternguard are apporpriately priced without adjustments for the efficiencies gained from upgrades, thus showing that the cost of an upgraded sternguards cost come from the improved effectiveness due to the cost of the upgrade. I also pointed out that the landraider doesn't work as an example for your arguement that potential upgrade efficiency gains raise the base price, because it had no real upgrades to take. I then humored your assertion that the potential of carrying a valuable unit raised its cost. This still doesn't reflect your original assertion that a base cost is a result of potential gians due to upgrades. The simple counter point to the assertion of the Land Raiders potential measured from its possible embarked unit is that it is 250pts effective without any unit in it.

Ah, I get you.
Although on this one we have to disagree.
I simply see to many units being overpriced when under naked and even when being naked and becoming properly priced (balanced) only when upgrades are taken. On this we seem to keep disagreeing, nothing to do about it but moving on.

I only use my sternguard naked and they work. By your assertion they shouldn't work.

And they dont
It would be extremely hard to sway me to think otherwise, that naked foot sterns are point effective (balanced).
Either you are a god amongst 40k table gamers or I am a total idiot for never making them "earn their points back" on a 50-50 basis in average gaming without relying heavily on CF HQs.
And I dont think I am, not with the games I have under my belt and the above average IQ I sincerely hope I posses
lol

I think part of the problem is what you define as an "upgrade". Transport capacity is not an upgrade. It an inherent component of the units profile. An "upgrade" is anything purchased beyond the basic profile. Thus a discussion on how upgrades effect a basic cost, can not include a unit that has no substantial upgrades.

Then we both got this basic issue wrong from the start. When I talk about "base" cost I mean base, nekkid, no upgrades that cost points period.
If a weapon is buyable for a point cost = upgrade.
Is a something (transport, wargear) is takeble for free without using another slot (assault marines) = not upgrade.
If something cost points and alters the units usefulness to the better = upgrade. (transports fall under this)

It is true. I use two of mine sucessfully all the time. You sight cheap weapons, cheap meltas in pods or fast attack units. If its a single weapon in a non-dedicated squad taking down a landraider, thats luck. If its a unit built for taking down a Land Raider than for more often than not its pricey.

Aha, try using one then
Look above 1, 2, 3 all multiple configurations project a different power level.

Luck? Hmm I thought you didnt believe in "abstract" things

Anyway, dedicated AT units I believe should be priced equally to what they shoot at, sadly the LR is cheaper then most things that shoot at it.
Take the sternguard, even in its very cheapest and most minmaxed LR hunting configuration you pay around 255p to stand a statistical chance to whack a 250p LR and even then things like terrain and ultimately, the inherited chaos in chance will not guarantee you as kill.

Does anyone take nine Penitent Engines? I've never seen it. But its proof why units must be priced based on their individual profile and not on unintentional "synergy".

I disagree. We see 9 killacans all the time. One is worthless, even with a KFF shielding it but in numbers it becomes a real threat. The same principle applies to most things like LRs, dreads and inevitably also to penitents.
Balancing only one will open the possibilities to cheese play and I personally will never stand for that and will work fervently against it.

I'm not doing that. I was only stating why I wouldn't need to pay you to do math for me after you asserted a predominant authority of understanding.

A misunderstanding on my part then,sorry. I understood what you said as a tendency for superiority or in other words an "I´m better then thou" comment. I´m glad I was wrong.

I guess this is why we disagree. I think the base price allows one to compare to other base prices. To follow what you assert requires one to believe a higher degree of accounting of unit capabilities and the fact that direct upgraded tied costs are inherently unfare.

Well yes, sadly it seems we truly disagree on this one. Maybe it is the brainwashing in our knowledge fields that is partially to blame, you being a math-leads-to-result guy and me having the "use logic and think, then apply math and then think again and maybe there will be success", hammered into me.

I kind of lean that way after seeing your point but still beliveing "abstract" things like terrain and what average armies your units will be facing must be part of their pricing.

From one science minded person to another, you have to grasp the concept of being able to simplify equations. That is what I'm doing. You are creating an uncontrolled environment to base the unit cost on. You have no absolute and concrete means for establishing the baseline that can be repeated. Your method models through observing statistical trends across a number of scenarios to generate the data needed to then determine a point value. The arbitrary aspect that is the weak point to it is that the scenarios can be quite subjective and without defining methodology it is more theoretical than pracitcal.

Seems my previous assumption was correct
Well, this I cannot do and for similar reasons as you claim.
The field I know operates in an almost total lack of known variables. Simplifying things for mathematical reasons is only allowed for mathematical filters, otherwise it will lead to a failed solution at best and human deaths at worst.
I deal(t) with equations of gravity for example, where the solution is a range of vectors and they are based on an infinite number of vectors with each one being of infinite value. A function of infinite variables that are ALL unknown (yes the variables behind a gravitic vector are mathematically speaking impossible to calculate) . A mathematical paradox and completely unsolvable and unsimplified where the only solution is to apply great deal of abstract thinking and logics.
This is what I am and its hard to simply trash all that and do "clean and simplified" math. I see abstract things behind your clean solutions that affect them and the gaming sense I have screams at me that the solution you just picked, be it fair in its intended balancing, will be very unbalanced if the real world (tabletop) suddenly apply to them.

Either we both accept what we are and use our advantages in tandem to create something bigger from them or we keep bickering trying to change the other person. I´d be happy to "discuss-out" some fun sister rules or points with you or whatever you want, partially because I would like to know the true worth of certain units, partially since maybe some GW game designer reads it and might be affected by it and partially because I value an intellectual challenge.

I am mixing the two, but its where I separate them.

And I dont separate them because what I see is more and bigger examples of GW altering base cost then upgrade cost and that is what I think they deliberately want to do. I dont agree with this but the pragmatical side of me accepts that if there is any chance for it to be taken under consideration by them.

Because you said it like it was a good thing after balking at the notion of mathematical interpretation. I was making the point, that the reason you say is GW's advantage, is the reason for point inconsistencies.

I made that comment as a result of your referring to me by "people like you" in a negative way and I did not appreciate that.
Not that it really matters by now, just wanted to clarify myself after you now did so we both understand the other guy better.

THIS:

One line out of 15 Ergo: subtle.
Well, jokes aside, what do you want to discuss firstly, from the very basic start I mean?
Thoughts on the next sister codex?
Well first of all I think they will be mixed in with deathwatch, assassins and grey knights but I also think fielding a pure SoB army will be viable although not as powerful as mixing in otehr crap into it (the usual mistake GW makes).

I also think the future SoB army will suffer from long range fire and from long range AT fire (as well as from cheap chort range AT fire).
They will not be good in melee but will have a certain staying power vs melee nevertheless.

As for their troop units I dont think they will be so stale and boring as SM since they never has some uptight idiot writing in an old book that when facing hordes of orks it is STILL not allowed to take more then one heavy bolter. (it always pisses me of to no end).
Thus with more flexible troop units they will have reduced efficiency at fast and heavy infantry slots with either decreased flexibility or increased points.
I see sister armies being heavy on troop SoB with other slots as support contrary to SM armies that use few troop slots as support to the other slots.

What do you think of this?

Just remember you whipped it out first, pervert.

Good one
The size apparently stunned you to such a degree that yours followed suit pretty damn fast

Just too complex to adequetly mathematically model to create a consistent system that allows direct comparison. I think there are examples where some of your assertions do hold true, just that your examples didn't hit on those.

Well, I think it is unavoidable to not mix in complex factors into the balancing game. I dont think having simplified scenarios with naked squad vs naked sqaud will cut it but this is where it must also start and probably be brushed up by meta game factors in a later stage.

I sincerely believe your methodology could establish a more precise basis for point values, but that the means of building the statistical basis for getting your "gut feeling" leaves something to be desired. Some one might be able to turn lead into gold, but unless he can teach someone else to do so to the same quality and repeatability, there is no consistency and it loses value for it.

I think common human bias is the key factor here and GW have proven this by now.
Having a lack of humbleness a bigger group of people can circumvent this but honestly I dont belive it needs to be that complicated as you are afraid of.
Basic price balancing with a couple of persons adding metagame factors that affect the balance is enough and then a new price would have to be well, to save time pretty much guesstimated out.
I think the end result would be very good and far from as scary complexity wise as I may make it seem with my ranting.

I might have to cut this thread i believe you two are even talking about battle sisters any more.

Tough to say what all needs to be changed. I know faith will be reworked and nerfed so bad it'll be useless. Faith points are the only reason my Canoness ever lives past the first round. If my opponent knew I couldn't potentially give her an invuln save, he'd instakill her with a railgun shot that I'd have zero ability to prevent.

There need to be more options, which won't happen, really. Streamlining and all. There's pretty much one or two ways to run a successful WH army and it often involves never using inquisition units. Which leaves me with sisters.

I'm fine with my sisters as is. I can see where they could be seen as overpowered, but they're really the only good thing about the army, and they have weaknesses so easy to plan against that not even faith can keep them safe.

Repentia need to be reworked. I love repentia to death. How they look, what the intention behind them is...but in the two dozen or so times I've fielded them, they've never made their points back, and only once destroyed a vehicle. I'd say they get killed before making it to an enemy unit 80% of the time, often in a single shooting phase. Doesn't matter if they're hidden behind rhinos or moving through cover, or whatnot, they just die incredibly easy. Might be that the average board size I run is larger than 72" but all tables I've seen are larger than 72" so I don't think that's an issue.
Even they get IN combat, they tend to die before getting meaningful attacks off. I can't count the number of times I've been dominated by a SM tac squad. I don't even try against marine anymore, only vehicles, because I know there's such a slim chance of me coming out alive. T3 and a crap non-invuln save AND attacks last? I'm lucky if I have one left standing to attack back with. Sure, I might lock a unit up for another assault phase, but that doesn't help when their points can be spent elsewhere. I mean, yeah, they'd do well killing a Mawloc or a Carnifex. So would a squad of sisters for half the points. So would a squad of IG. So would my Inquisitor and his retinue.
My repentia have killed one rhino, 17 marines, 4 firewarriors, and a Librarian in the two dozen or so times I've fielded their unit. I've tried every way possible to keep them safe until they can get where they need to go, but even with elaborate baiting, they're often at a quarter strength or less when they get there. They need at LEAST 4 toughness. At the very least. I don't even care about an invuln because a 5++ won't mean much in the grand scheme of things, because they're so fragile you just send a small group of your weakest guys with guns to shoot at them for a turn and kill them. No one is killing them with tanks or anything important unless they need to, or have nothing else in range.

The Book of St.Lucius needs to be killed off or have its points cost raised by a lot because it's far too cheap. Maybe make faith points unpooled, and instead have a distribution before the game. Martyrdom would be pooled of course, but starting off you'd designate which units get how many faith points assigned to them.

The payoff for Arcoflags is far too extreme. On one hand, they can kill themselves easily, and you need to stim it or else they'll be killed before they reach their targets. Not to mention a 4++ isn't the greatest save(it is a good enougn save however and it's balanced right), even with a 5T, because you'll be garnering the interest of high S weapons that are oh so common these days in the newer codexes. The amount of attacks I can get with them is ludicrous if I get in close combat though. They can kill anything in CC with a decent roll of the dice and a charging bonus. I'd like if they had fleet, and if a charging bonus was removed due to the ridiculous method of attack they're using that's bound to be rather clumsy anyways.

Priests are absolutely useless and there's nothing redeeming about them. That has to change if they're mandatory for certain unit selections, because they're wasted points that almost never accomplish anything, and take up a slot.

I would like the Inquisitors to be revamped, but that's probably just my bias showing here. I know they're rather useless in game and a huge points sink for an HQ, but Inquisitors are meant to be FEARED and are very powerful. At least make his psychic abilities worthwhile. I pretty much only use hammer of the Witches these days, if anything, because the rest just aren't useful. Inqs are useless in CC so upping his strength or preventing an assault...well, they aren't useful in the least. If you have those powers available, at least make him serviceable in CC to warrant the point cost. Scourging is semi-useful but is rarely used and that 15 points could be put towards an inferno pistol, or whatnot. I don't knwo what I'd do to boost him, he just needs full revamping.

Penitent Engines can only be run at high #s to be effective, and that's often a huge sink of points. If I field 9, I'll have 3 or 4 that get one round to attack before they're all wiped, or if I'm absurdly lucky, one will survive to the next round after. Pretty much anything can kill a penitent engine, so long as they have some form of range. I wouldn't be opposed to reducing the size of their units to make them more survivable.

I think Sisters need more options when it comes to vehicles, but that may just be my envy of the options a slew of other armies get. In truth, I just want something in the codex that allows deepstrike/outflank/etc. because sisters are far from mobile right now unless they tank-book it up the field.

Assassins could use some tweaking. Not much tweaking, because they're no so far gone, but they are rather maligned for a reason.

I know my sisters have a theme and I don't want or expect the army to excel at short, mid, and long range, have High power low AP weapons for cheap, and be as mobile as DE. I just find that the current rules for the army don't allow the theme to be used in its full glory because some units are unforgivably useless or expensive. I'd like to have a codex like the Eldar one, or SM, where every unit in the codex can be useful and worth its points. I can't say the same for WH and all I want is a variety to choose from to keep things interesting, for them to be good enough to play and be worthwhile. I don't do tourneys, I just do fun games, but it's no fun leaving out my Repentia, Penitents, Assassins, Inquisitors, etc. because my army will be wiped by turn 5 otherwise. Making them playable is fine by me. eepign faith as good as it is would be nice too. I figure if Spacewolves can get Jaws and The Doom of Malantai has that aura, and the SM chapter commanders have all those awesome abilities, my sisters can have faith. Besides, our character HQs are atrocious.

Priests don't take up a slot; they are pretty crap though

I agree with most of what you say here. The 'Clown' units are just not competitive in any respect, this is balanced out by the SoB being incredibly tough (especially when mech'd up) but does lead to almost all SoB players using exactly the same list. Like you say, there needs to be some work done to make the options more balanced.

Karamazov is an utter waste of points, but Celestine is a fantastic griefing device Every time i run her, she makes her points back and forces my opponent to deal with her even when she's sitting in reserve. Yes, she's not that strong in combat or shooting, but for mis-direction and annoyance she's the best (even losing d6 faith points isn't too bad if you use her properly).

I guess this begs the question: how to make priests better?
They are over priced. Should have more options. Have a more obvious purpose and advantage.
Allowing them to select relics or churchly items that impact how the squad they're in functions mights be a simple way of doing this, while giving them more than an evicerator to distinguish themselves.

In some way they're a means of bringing into the non-SOB units a ecclisiarchical feel. In this role they'd likely be diminished if the nature or number of inductable units or non-SOB units change.

I still think some new unit like Crusaders or Pilgrims should be created, if either were it would give the Priests a more concrete niche in the army.

Touching on what I previously said, the crusader as a option for the Inquisitors retinue, they have to be recruited from somewhere. So it makes sense to me there would be units of them. A troop choice of close combat stormtroopers with Power Weapons and maybe a 5+ inv saves wouldn't be too outrageous. It might clash with the theme of the army, but might be mitigated by controlling unit size and options.

Archoflagellants and Repentia, would benefit from more options, unless they're expected to remain one trick ponies.