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 wasn't sure if this should go here or under game design, but since it was specific to 40K, I thought this was the better place.

I'm trying to design a formula that can help me appropriately recost 40K units, based on math probabilities and gameplay simulation and not on GW's skewed estimation of unit points.

For the base, I am currently assuming that a single generic, non-upgraded space marine is 15 points. From that, I am hoping to be able to work up some formula(s) to help give me an idea how much units, upgrades and the like are, based on the preformace of the item/unit in a mock 6 round game (because most die rolls in the game are D6, assuming 6 turns seems to make the math a bit easier). For example, an item that changes a Marine's armor from 3+ to 2+ improves the marine's chances by 1 in 6, so it seems like the value of this would be worth 1/6th of a marine or 2.5 points. (Soemthing just gnaws at me that in that example, there's a lot more to account for than that simple formula)

Basically, I am trying to evaluate points based on "it's worth X% of marines". I know there's a lot of flaws to that, but I'm hoping it can give me a ballpark that I can then further tweak through running through spreadsheet/battle program or flat-out table testing.

Any input or "gotchas" I should be aware of, or if anyone has already created a system and could point me to it, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Don't forget the -10% points for new kit.
Or the additional -5% for being CWE.

On a more serious note, check out the VDR that have been on here for forever. It'll give you a good idea about what you're looking for.

It is linked in my signature.

I started the process, so here is where I saw things going

Continue the toughness/save chart downward. This WILL give you a negative point total to start with.

When you give the unit weapons, only add the point total once.

Build the units in blocks of 3 or 5 as opposed to single models. Building models singularly will fall apart VERY quickly.

 Stormonu wrote:
For example, an item that changes a Marine's armor from 3+ to 2+ improves the marine's chances by 1 in 6, so it seems like the value of this would be worth 1/6th of a marine or 2.5 points.

That doesn't increase his chances by 1 in 6. There are actually many problems with saying that. One is that if you wound six marines and save four of them, saving five of them isn't 1/6 better, it's 25% better. Well, that 25% number is not really sufficient to make a formula from. However, 1/6 is not mathematically correct at all.

Besides mathematics, there are other things it doesn't consider. You have one marine, OK, but how many shots does he need to survive? If he has the right type of gun, maybe he has to survive x turns before he can shoot it successfully, but then after he does he is worthless. Maybe he comes on from reserve, when parts of the enemy army are dead.

Now consider the Land Raider. It has all different kinds of wargear that you want to attribute points values to. How about its ability to transport bulky infantry, how many points does that make? All vehicles can do that by default of they don't have a rule starting otherwise, maybe it shouldn't be worth anything, but on the other hand, slave marines have a bulky unit that really needs a transport. If you put the land raider in necrons or skitarii, being able to transport bulky assault models would not be worth as much, since they don't have bulky assault units that need transport to move faster than 6".

I would strongly suggest that you cost complete units, which is at the level of the interaction of the 40k game.

Unlike GW who assign point values to individual models/equipment , then try to balance at the army level.

All vehicles can carry bulky models by default, you'll notice that ones who aren't able to will have a small but interesting rule to offset that loss. (Such as the rhino being able to heal immobilized results)

Iv tried to do a points system formula.

it gets complicated super quick if you have too many special rules and effects.

it takes a lot of math.

Figuring out statistical probability of each stat and the amount of times it comes up in a game and putting points to that and then averaging them out within each model.

i gave up because i remembered i really hated math in highschool.

I got far enough along that I said to hell with it and made my own game.

Currently in alpha testing, but it is a working system and gameplay is fast and mean

There are three ways to value the different special rules.

Per unit

Per model

Per unit with additional points per model.

If you separate the rules based on this instead of by how often they come up you will see a serious simplification in math.

To things like feel no pain, that should be priced per model.

For fleet, that should be priced per unit.

Furious charge would be a base price, but with a point or two added per model in the unit. Furious charge changes a stat, but in a limited way. Charging per model would cause the price to go through the roof, but a smaller total for the unit and then a point per model will keep the cost down so it is worth giving the rule in the first place.

Its true.

honestly the easiest way to make any point system work well is to actually play test and readjust things.

i was personally trying to do a very statistical 50/50% probability point system, but its daunting. and you have to apply all probability including the majority of in game instances otherwise its not really accurate

 Stormonu wrote:
For example, an item that changes a Marine's armor from 3+ to 2+ improves the marine's chances by 1 in 6, so it seems like the value of this would be worth 1/6th of a marine or 2.5 points. (Soemthing just gnaws at me that in that example, there's a lot more to account for than that simple formula)

What's missing is that defense is not 100% of a model's value. Let's say you have a thing that improves the durability of a marine by 6/6 of a marine (IOW, double). By your system that would be worth a full 15 points, but that's clearly not the correct value. A marine with double the durability still has the same firepower as a single marine, same scoring ability as a single marine, etc. So it can't possibly be worth the full cost of two marines. To get anything close to an accurate value you'd have to say that durability is worth X% of the marine's 15 points, so any improvement in durability is a Y% increase in that X%. But even then you have problems with diminishing returns (no matter how indestructable you make a marine it's still just one model with a bolter, and eventually your opponent just ignores it).

Anyway, the real problem you're going to run into is that coming up with a formula for something as complicated as a unit's point cost is going to be extremely complicated. The whole point of having a formula is to save yourself the trouble of going through rounds of iterative guess and test playtesting to find the correct number. But to make a formula that works well you're going to spend so much time and effort on coming up with it that you might as well just use the traditional approach.

Originally when there was a basic method to calculate point values in WHFB and 40k.(The games were much simpler back them , as they had not suffered from so much special rules bloat etc.)
Players constantly complained the game devs were not calculating the PV correctly. Eg a models BS skill would still count even if they had not got a ranged weapon.

Rather than address these 'oversights' and make changes to improve game balance.(Like A.o.A) At some point the decision was made to obscure the very simple game play and core rules with tons of special rules .This promoted short term sales of toy soldiers, and made accurate PV allocation impossible.

So if you want a provable level of game balance like other war games you need to re write the rules to get a cleaner system with proportional results.

Anything else is just based on general opinion, and is quite subjective.