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.

Per one of the main AOS fb pages, SDK is now officially dead.

"Sadly, SDK will no longer be updated. Due to the synergy based rule design of many new units, SDK is no longer a valid method to calculate fair point values. We want to thank everyone for the help and the fun we had building SDK. For everyone willing to keep the system alive, we made the RAW data files downloadable and copy-able."

Well good on him for recognizing it.

For those who want the simplicity and ease of use for SDK, I'd recommend Azyr comp. For those who want more intricacy and balance I'd recommend Project Points Cost.

Hmm really sad to hear this...

Herein lies the biggest issue with fan based points systems, GW will never consult with the people trying to make it work.

One change could throw you off completely ruining all your efforts.

The more new units together with special rules issued by GW, the more difficult it is to integrate everything into the costing system.

SDK used a strictly mathematical approach, meaning anything that can't be quantified in terms of hard numbers is either left out or factored using abstract numbers. Its why the balance was rough-and-ready because units were costed with the same consistent approach, but also why the balance could never be more than 'OK' because, quite frankly, it will always take playtesting to cover that last gap. I mean, this is the comp that says a Great Unclean one is 20% better than Scarbrand.

Sad to see one of the major comps go - I think it's always a good thing to have diversity in the way you can play the game, and SDK was a very solid effort (and still is in its current form)!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
SDK used a strictly mathematical approach, meaning anything that can't be quantified in terms of hard numbers is either left out or factored using abstract numbers. Its why the balance was rough-and-ready because units were costed with the same consistent approach, but also why the balance could never be more than 'OK' because, quite frankly, it will always take playtesting to cover that last gap. I mean, this is the comp that says a Great Unclean one is 20% better than Scarbrand.

Adding to this, I also believe it's important to keep an open mind and change the mathematical formula as time goes by and more games have been played. What seemed like a good set value for the interaction between characteristics at the early days might not be so some months in when you've gotten a better grasp of how the different stats interact. I've changed the formula for PPC countless times, but even then the values for units are only estimated at best until properly playtested, with all the complexity special rules bring.

Attilla wrote:
Sad to see one of the major comps go - I think it's always a good thing to have diversity in the way you can play the game, and SDK was a very solid effort (and still is in its current form)!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
SDK used a strictly mathematical approach, meaning anything that can't be quantified in terms of hard numbers is either left out or factored using abstract numbers. Its why the balance was rough-and-ready because units were costed with the same consistent approach, but also why the balance could never be more than 'OK' because, quite frankly, it will always take playtesting to cover that last gap. I mean, this is the comp that says a Great Unclean one is 20% better than Scarbrand.

Adding to this, I also believe it's important to keep an open mind and change the mathematical formula as time goes by and more games have been played. What seemed like a good set value for the interaction between characteristics at the early days might not be so some months in when you've gotten a better grasp of how the different stats interact. I've changed the formula for PPC countless times, but even then the values for units are only estimated at best until properly playtested, with all the complexity special rules bring.

Please get PPC on scroll builder. The guy who runs it seems pretty open to adding comps and added SCGT within a day of it coming out. I'd love to try PPC and I think people would like it but I am among the lazy who want it all ready for me on an army builder and don't want to have to go into the document myself to add things up.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AzyrBuilder.aspx

Definitely agree, the online builders make things more accessible.

coldgaming wrote:

Attilla wrote:
Sad to see one of the major comps go - I think it's always a good thing to have diversity in the way you can play the game, and SDK was a very solid effort (and still is in its current form)!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
SDK used a strictly mathematical approach, meaning anything that can't be quantified in terms of hard numbers is either left out or factored using abstract numbers. Its why the balance was rough-and-ready because units were costed with the same consistent approach, but also why the balance could never be more than 'OK' because, quite frankly, it will always take playtesting to cover that last gap. I mean, this is the comp that says a Great Unclean one is 20% better than Scarbrand.

Adding to this, I also believe it's important to keep an open mind and change the mathematical formula as time goes by and more games have been played. What seemed like a good set value for the interaction between characteristics at the early days might not be so some months in when you've gotten a better grasp of how the different stats interact. I've changed the formula for PPC countless times, but even then the values for units are only estimated at best until properly playtested, with all the complexity special rules bring.

Please get PPC on scroll builder. The guy who runs it seems pretty open to adding comps and added SCGT within a day of it coming out. I'd love to try PPC and I think people would like it but I am among the lazy who want it all ready for me on an army builder and don't want to have to go into the document myself to add things up.

True! Only two things that's stopped me so far from making contact is that I think the warscroll builder site is not that well suited to the PPC style where you can often add individual things to a unit (Oldhammer/40k style). I think it might become too fiddly on the warscroll site. The other thing is that I'm reluctant to depend on an outside source for updating. I'd like to avoid tournaments having to declare that they will use PPC, but not Scrollbuilder as that isn't fully updated, which I've seen tournaments have with other comps on the site. This is not to take anything away from the guy/guys who run the site - they do a tremendous work which I think have helped grow the AoS community indescribably much!

However, for those that want aid in creating their lists, we do have BattleScribe as our chosen one. Just download the program (here on your computer, or the app on your phone and then the file (from here). Then you'll be up and making lists in no time. Only downside is not making the list on the net, but I still enjoy using the phone app which is flexible enough for me.

I think we will see more comp systems go until we have 2 or 3 left in total.

I personally think the SCGT comp is the best going (not to disrespect the the PPC guys here), its nice and quick and doesnt have the feel of offering a solution that simply tries to emulate the old system. Plus the missions they have written are great fun!

There are only really 3 or 4 comp systems that people refer to typically.

SCGT has the best scenarios I have seen, without question.

" Due to the synergy based rule design of many new units, SDK is no longer a valid method to calculate fair point values."

I don't know anything about the system they had, but I don't follow that statement. AoS was synergy based from the start, many old units/armies are heavily synergy based. If the synergy system was the issue then was it ever a valid method?

SDK ran on a stats formula to derive points, so it's very difficult to quantify an ability or effect into that.

For people that want that kind of system, SDK was absolutely fine as a starting point but to fine tune it and give it the absolute precision that people want from a points value takes extensive play testing, feedback etc.

Can anyone help me figure out how you do the maths to figure out SDK points? I tried reading through the site, but it's baffling.

 Dreadlegions wrote:
Can anyone help me figure out how you do the maths to figure out SDK points? I tried reading through the site, but it's baffling.

Use the online builder on http://scrollbuilder.com/

 Hanskrampf wrote:

 Dreadlegions wrote:
Can anyone help me figure out how you do the maths to figure out SDK points? I tried reading through the site, but it's baffling.

Use the online builder on http://scrollbuilder.com/

They meant the formula to work out what points each unit is worth.

hmmm someone up dated warscroll builder. Not a lot just someone add a new system. wonder who it was.and where KVD is from.

 Steel Angel wrote:
hmmm someone up dated warscroll builder. Not a lot just someone add a new system. wonder who it was.and where KVD is from.

Found it via google.
http://aoskdv.wix.com/aoskdv

Stat-Damage-Keyword system. Uses the SDK system at first glance.