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.

NOTE ON THE POLL: IT'S A MULTIPLE CHOICE TYPE DEAL! CHOOSE ANY AND ALL ANSWERS YOU FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE!

This is a thread very much in the spirit of the thread I had started a while back on the wraithknight. It concerns a long-standing argument that I've been having with other members on dakka, and I wish to submit the question to public opinion for polling purposes.

I state, in brief, the conclusion which I wish to reach: All bikes, with their current ruleset, are worth at least 10 points over and in addition to the non-bike model to which they are most comparable.

Currently, bikes are roughly a 7 point upgrade. Consider the following:

1. Ork warbikers cost 18 ppm. The most comparable model is an ork boy with heavy armor. The bike adds all of the normal bike benefits, as well as a cool gun.

2. Dark Eldar wyches cost 10 ppm. Dark Eldar bikes cost 16 ppm and come with totally awesome hammer of wrath attacks.

3. Tactical Marines are 14 ppm. Space Marine bikes are 21 ppm. Space marine bikes come with twink-linkd heavy bolters.

4. Space marine scouts are 11 ppm. Scout bikes are 18 ppm.

5. Eldar guardians are 10 ppm. Windriders are 17. Bikes come with twin-linked shuriken catapults.

It seems to me as though the intent of GW is fairly clear: a bike is worth about 7 points, regardless of what kind of bike it is (thus making the dark eldar bike overcosted, by GW's standards, by a point, and the ork bike overcosted by a point).

My question is this: Is this a fair assessment of the value of bikes?

Bikes confer: 1. +1 toughness (mark of nurgle is 2 ppm in the CSM codex), 2. the ability to move 12 in the movement phase and turbo boost 12 in the shooting phase and a hammer of wrath attack (comparable to jump-packs, which are worth 3 ppm in the space marine codex), 3. relentless (particularly noticeable for space marine attack bike heavy weapons, grav weapons on space marine bikes and scatter lasers on windrider bikes), 4. the ability to jink (which is categorically better than going to ground).

Is all of that only worth 7 points per model?

In the case of jetbikes, we have even more benefits in addition to the benefits of normal bikes: 1. the ability to ignore terrain and enemy models while moving, 2. the ability to turbo boost more than 12 inches (eldar bikes turbo boost 36 inches) and 3. the ability to make an assault movement of 2d6.

Is it fair that jetbikes and non-jetbikes should have the same points value? Should jetbikes cost more because they have more rules?

Finally, consider the fact that windrider bikes, in addition to all of the benefits of being bike units AND jetbike units, actually gain a 2 point increase to their armor save.

Guardians have 5+ armor. The bike confers 3+ armor. (Note that scout-bikes don't increase the armor save of scouts; neither do ork bikes; neither do dark eldar bikes; neither do space marine bikes).

It costs 4 ppm to go from 6+ to 4+ for ork boys' 'eavy armor.

Shouldn't it cost more, pointswise, to go from 5+ (which is what guardians have) to 3+ armor?

Let's do the math:

Guardian = 10 points
Mark of nurgle = 2 points
jump pack = 3 points
3+ armor = more than 4 points

I'm already at more than 19 points, and we haven't taken into account that jetbikes have more special rules than regular bikes, the fact that bikes have relentless OR the fact that bikes can jink.

Is 17 ppm for a naked windrider a fair cost?

So, questions:

1. How much should bikes cost?
2. How much should jetbikes cost?
3. How much should naked windriders cost?

I propose:

1. 10 points AND bikes shouldn't have relentless
2. 12 points AND jetbikes shouldn't have relentless

and

3. 25 ppm AND they shouldn't have relentless, and they should only have a 4+ armor.

Reasoning: fluffwise, they're an upgrade to guardians. In fact, however, they feel like an upgrade to dire avengers. Dire avengers = 13. 13+12 = 25.

Yes, it is. It plays like a 17 ppm model. Maybe it should be 19, but in this case, being undercosted has no in-game consequences.

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, it is. It plays like a 17 ppm model. Maybe it should be 19, but in this case, being undercosted has no in-game consequences.

Do ork warbikers play like an 18 ppm model?

It costs 12 ppm to go from a 6+ save ork boy to an ork warbiker with a 4+ save.

But it only costs 7 to go from a 5+ guardian to a 3+ save windrider?

Bull puckey.

Anything less than a 22 ppm windrider, in its current form, is an insult.

Then consider yourself insulted. Because Eldar jetbikes are fine at 17 ppm base.

Non-bike models are likely overcosted a bit in 7th ed because of the firepower.

Martel732 wrote:
Then consider yourself insulted. Because Eldar jetbikes are fine at 17 ppm base.

Non-bike models are likely overcosted a bit in 7th ed because of the firepower.

How is saying that non-bike models are overcosted any different from saying that bike models are undercosted?

Either way, you are saying that there should be a greater points disparity than there currently is.

It actually costs 8 points to make a guardian a windrider. They're 9 ppm. I was debating being so technical about it but at this scale, doing this much math with it, I guess 1 point matters.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Then consider yourself insulted. Because Eldar jetbikes are fine at 17 ppm base.

Non-bike models are likely overcosted a bit in 7th ed because of the firepower.

How is saying that non-bike models are overcosted any different from saying that bike models are undercosted?

Either way, you are saying that there should be a greater points disparity than there currently is.

Yes, but it's not one that is having a huge effect on the table. Infantry being slow hurts them against GMCs and SHW as well. It's not just about bikes. That's why I say they are overcosted.

BossJakadakk wrote:
It actually costs 8 points to make a guardian a windrider. They're 9 ppm. I was debating being so technical about it but at this scale, doing this much math with it, I guess 1 point matters.

My mistake!

So it's actually on par with the transition from a boy in 'eavy armor to an ork warbiker.

The difference being that windriders don't actually pay for their 'eavy armor.

Here we go again...

Also Traditio you really shouldn't vote on your own poll, it's not proper.

I'm not voting because my view is not represented. There is no single universal point value for a bike.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Here we go again...

Also Traditio you really shouldn't vote on your own poll, it's not proper.

But how else can he measure the way he should interpret the polls? Clearly his opinion weighs at least 100 votes of ours. That's why the side he supports is always a "strong minority" and therefore defeats any majority.

I agree with Martel, bikes are worth differently depending one each codex since there's internal as well as external balance to consider and having one "cure-all" price doesn't factor in each faction's quirks or playstyle.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not voting because my view is not represented. There is no single universal point value for a bike.

Exactly. Bikes are worth more for some armies and worth less for others. Also, some bikes (ie most) aren't good stock. Bikes tend to be good or bad because of the upgrades (or lack thereof). You could MAYBE argue for a universal static cost for bikes on HQ choices, but I think that would be a bad idea since again some hqs and armies benefit more than others.

I was giving OP benefit of the doubt about being a troll in regards to these polls and threads, but I think it is becoming fairly obvious that I was wrong to do so. This will be my last post in this thread. Someone wants to be fed, I and don't want to do it anymore.

As a thought experiment, make a list with a bunch of naked windrider and then explain how OP they are against my standard BA lists. Explain how any squad will get to fire more than once, twice if they roll super well in the assault phase.

The poll presupposes you can price options fairly a la carte.

That is to say, there is exactly one number that would reflect the value any unit would gain by receiving it.

For a trivial example, look at Relentless. How many points is it worth? If you gave Relentless to, say, a Devestator squad, itd be worth quite a bit. Now Grav Cannons can move and shoot! Drop out of pods and light a target up with 4 MM and a combi MM! That is quite a lot of awesome! Im not going to investigate the actual value, but we can all agree on "more than zero".

So thats awesome. Lets do the same for ASM. As discussed, they now have to pay for Relentless. How many points is it woth to them? Assuming a la carte pricing works, clearly its worth more than 0. But what benefit do they get? Absolutely 0. So the value must be both 0 and more than zero. At the same time. As such, it is obvious that you cant set a single value for an option and have it be fair across the board.

So lets look at something more relevant. Lets look at everyones favorite to hate codex, CWE. How much is a bike worth? For a Guardian? I think 8 works well for it. How about a Wraithguard? Could you imagine those things jetting around at 12"? With JSJ? And now T7? A Wraithlord? 128 points for that thing moving q2" would be too cheap even before factoring everything else.

Lets look at Power Swords. An SM Captain or Sarge pays 14ppm, and replaces their boltgun (or pistol). Lets pretend Banshess had nothing else beyond a Guardian besides a Power Sword. In what would is that a 24 point model?

A la carte pricing doesnt work. The concept is likely behind many of the balance abominations we currently face in the game. Most people realize this.

Without an option of "None of the Above", "Other", or "It Depends", the poll attached cant tell you anything more beyond the varying opinions of those who accept the premise youre arguing. And considering how many comments say the value varies by model, that is at least one strong category youre missing.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not voting because my view is not represented.

As is the case with EVERY Traditio poll.

"I want to see what everyone's favorite color is, so I made a poll:"
"Is your favorite color:
---Blue
---Light Blue
---Dark Blue
---Navy Blue
---Aqua Blue"

But what if my favorite color is Red?
"Doesn't matter public opinion says Blue is the best color!!"

--

I'm still wanting to hear how these 17 ppm abominations are just going to run my BA off the table with their 12" guns. Can they even kill a predator? I don't think so. I guess on the rear.

You can argue that Windriders shouldn't have 3+ but the price is okay. It is the ability to grab that many Scatter lasers for cheap being the issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can argue that Windriders shouldn't have 3+ but the price is okay. It is the ability to grab that many Scatter lasers for cheap being the issue.

I understand that, and I mostly agree on the armor. However, my point is that the armor really isn't the issue.

I'd be happy with 20pts Scatter lasers

The problem with this thread is two-fold and has been mentioned before:

(1) You can't put all bikes and the like under the same umbrella. The best way to is to consider a case-by-case basis where you try to internally balance each unit with regards to the rest of their codex (e.g. Balance Bikes of all types in the C:SM with all other units within) and then balance on an inter-codex level.

(2) If nothing else, the above issue will render any poll results useless. I know you love your generic polls and 'collecting data' (as I think you've put it in the past), but (1) (if nothing else) is standing in the way of the results meaning anything. Plus I think Martel was right when they said the following:

Martel732 wrote:I'm not voting because my view is not represented. There is no single universal point value for a bike.

Also, as a few people have said, a points increase is in order for a number of units and/or upgrades, but those are very much on a case-by-case basis (e.g. Scatter Lasers).

Bharring wrote:
The poll presupposes you can price options fairly a la carte.

GW already does this.

A scout bike is a 7 point "upgrade" from a scout marine. A space marine bike is roughly a 7 point "upgrade" from a tactical marine.

11 =/= 14 points, but the "upgrade" costs the same: 7 points.

And it's an upgrade cost that seems to be more or less constant throughout different codices, as I showed in the OP. 6-8 points...pretty much every time.

Just for gaks and giggles...

Chaos Space Marines: 13 ppm.

Chaos Space Marine Bikes: 20 ppm.

7 points, give or take a point. It's pretty much a constant with GW.

You'll criticize my "a la carte" approach to it, but GW appears to be already doing it with bikes.

For a trivial example, look at Relentless. How many points is it worth? If you gave Relentless to, say, a Devestator squad, itd be worth quite a bit. Now Grav Cannons can move and shoot! Drop out of pods and light a target up with 4 MM and a combi MM! That is quite a lot of awesome! Im not going to investigate the actual value, but we can all agree on "more than zero".

So thats awesome. Lets do the same for ASM. As discussed, they now have to pay for Relentless. How many points is it woth to them? Assuming a la carte pricing works, clearly its worth more than 0. But what benefit do they get? Absolutely 0. So the value must be both 0 and more than zero. At the same time. As such, it is obvious that you cant set a single value for an option and have it be fair across the board.

Ork warbikers don't have the option to take rapidfire weapons or heavy weapons. They still pay full cost for their bikes. And for their 'eavy armor.

Do you really think it's fair that an Ork boy has to pay 12 ppm to get 'eavy armor and a bike, but a guardian only has to pay 8 to go from a 5+ to a 3+ and get a JETbike?

Windriders actually can take a heavy weapon, but they don't have to pay as much as the ork boy does and still get a BETTER upgrade.

I call bullgak.

If the ork boy has to pay 12, the guardian should have to pay 15. Minimum.

Lets look at Power Swords. An SM Captain or Sarge pays 14ppm, and replaces their boltgun (or pistol). Lets pretend Banshess had nothing else beyond a Guardian besides a Power Sword. In what would is that a 24 point model?

Power swords are 15 ppm.

And this only strengthens my point. In the 6th ed. space marine codex, guess what it cost for a tactical to take a missile launcher? 15 points.

Guess what it cost a scout, who had 1 less BS? 15 points.

A la carte pricing doesnt work.

GW already apparently uses it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

IllumiNini wrote:You can't put all bikes and the like under the same umbrella.

Except, as I've already argued, GW clearly does.

So GW does it, so its the way it is.

Therefore, we should apply it where GW has not done this.

That doesnt follow.

Further, it does not do so in all cases. Again, powerswords on Banshees. Or Vanguard Veteren weapons.

Bharring, I'll ask you simple yes or no questions:

Do guardians get more than ork boys do in getting a bike?

Is it right that guardians should pay less than ork boys do to get a bike?

They get more and less.

More mobility, less fighty.

So its not so simple.

Overall, a bike Guardian is worth nearly as much as a biker ork. Oddly, their point cost is nearly as much as a biker ork.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The gain isnt what matters, its the final result.

Bharring wrote:
They get more and less.

More mobility, less fighty.

So its not so simple.

Overall, a bike Guardian is worth nearly as much as a biker ork. Oddly, their point cost is nearly as much as a biker ork.

Bull puckey.

Orks go from a 6+ to a 4+ armor save.

Guardians go from a 5+ to a 3+ armor save.

Orks gain a USR that will literally never apply to them (relentless).

Guardians gain a USR that they will exploit every turn if they upgrade to take scatter lasers.

Orks gain the ability to move 24 inches per turn. Guardians gain the ability to move 48 inches per turn AND ignore terrain.

I could go on.

Sure, you could try to make the claim that the ork bike ends up being more choppy as a result. But so what? That's not what I asked.

I asked which one actually gains more from having a bike, and the answer is clearly the guardian. The guardian gains way more useuable special rules than the ork does. The bike actually provides a much bigger "boost," so to speak, in terms of stat-line changes and useuable special rules.

Therefore, guardians should pay more.

It's that simple.

The gain isnt what matters, its the final result.

GW clearly disagrees.

Orks want to get close to the enemy. Bikes let them do thatnmuch better.

Guardians want to stay away from the enemy. Bikes are a little better at that than just camping backfield. But for Ork boyz, the difference between footslogging and biking is huge.

So, naked, Orkz need it more.

Also, naked Windridere also dont use relentless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
GW also thinks Scatter Bikes are fair.

When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept, when the game interaction is at the unit level.

Unit need to be costed as complete units compared to other units , to cover all the synergistic bonuses in the unit compositions.

Lanrak wrote:
When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept

GW already does it. See OP.

 Traditio wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, it is. It plays like a 17 ppm model. Maybe it should be 19, but in this case, being undercosted has no in-game consequences.

Do ork warbikers play like an 18 ppm model?

It costs 12 ppm to go from a 6+ save ork boy to an ork warbiker with a 4+ save.

But it only costs 7 to go from a 5+ guardian to a 3+ save windrider?

Bull puckey.

Anything less than a 22 ppm windrider, in its current form, is an insult.

You seem to be ignoring that Ork Warbikers are also T5 while a Windrinder is only T4

 Traditio wrote:

Lanrak wrote:
When will people realize that costing elements that make up a unit separately is a flawed concept

GW already does it. See OP.

GW also thinks that Wraithknights are costed appropriately, free transports are A-Okay, Scatterlaser spam is not broken, and this very issue you raise on bikers is fine.

If we were to use this argument, the entire Proposed Rules forum would not exist, because anything we change here is not how GW would do it.