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.

For the purpose of this discussion, lets ASSUME that a basic tactical marine with bolter and bolt pistol is correctly valued at 13 points. This isn't a discussion about the value of a marine, it's a discussion about the value of mobility.

A bike is essentially two tactical marines. The price of bikes seems about on par with this. Let's examine:
1 tactical marine is T4, W1, A1, Rapid fire 1 and costs 13 points.
2 tactical marines are T4, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2 and cost 26 points.
1 bike is T5, W2, A2 (from the free chainsword), Rapid fire 2 and costs 25 points.

A theoretical 'primaris marine with storm bolter' is T4, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2. He should be worth less than 26 points because of:
* the existence of multi damage weapons
* reduction in board coverage compared to 2 tactical marines
How many points should he be exactly?

A theoretical 'tougher marine' is T5, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2 (storm bolter). How much more than the tough marine does he need to be to pay for the T5?

Now finally, back to bikes.
The differences between a bike and the tougher marine are:
* Switch from Infantry to Bike type (a bad thing because it means less interaction with terrain)
* Increase in M from 6 to 14

How much is that speed increase worth?

Similarly, how much is a jump pack worth? Is it really 3 points between assault marine with and without 12" and Fly?
Would a bolter marine with jump back be worth 16 points?
What about a theoretical fast marine who cannot deep strike and does not have Fly, but still has 12" movement?

What would a stationary marine be worth?

Hopefully you don't think it's simply "+X pts per speed"? Because that's obviously wrong answer.

Marines with JP can ignore models and terrain in the movement phase, they get +6" movement, they get the ability to charge flyers, can deepstrike, can still shoot after falling back. All of this for 3 pts. is good value.

Also keep in mind that is actually takes twice the amount of D2+ weapon shots to kill 2 Marines than 1 Bike.

Overcharging Plasma, for example, can kill 1 bike in 1 shot. That's impossible to do against the 2 Marines as you need 2 separate shots.
I would argue that regardless of the extra W, T & M, the mobility of a bike is NOT worth twice a Marine.
I would say about a 50% ppm increase is about right.
So if a Tactical is worth 13ppm, a Bike might be worth 20ppm

But this does not always translate to all units. Assault Marines, for example, do not get the additional W or T. Personally, I feel they SHOULD get +1W, but that isn't what we are discussing.
A Tactical and Assault Marine are equally durable, but one is just faster. The Tactical also counts as a Troop, which has it's own advantages (filling mandatory slots for better detachments, ObSec, etc)
I honestly feel that in this case, the ppm increase should be no more than 25% for that mobility, which is about what they do cost as p5freak points out.

Eldar Windriders, however, get a lot more for their mobility over a Guardian. In addition to +1W, T and far more Movement, they get +1 Armour, going from 5+ to 4+.
Add in Battle Focus and their automatic 6" Advance and you have a model is worth twice its Infantry counterpart.
Although GW currently prices them at 3x that cost, which is too much and no one takes them over Spears or even Vypers.

But as you can see, there is no way to determine a flat cost of mobility. You have to look at each unit individually.

-

 p5freak wrote:
Marines with JP can ignore models and terrain in the movement phase, they get +6" movement, they get the ability to charge flyers, can deepstrike, can still shoot after falling back. All of this for 3 pts. is good value.

Except it's not in practice. Every marine jump unit is awful, ba included. Except for captains. Yay.

Martel732 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Marines with JP can ignore models and terrain in the movement phase, they get +6" movement, they get the ability to charge flyers, can deepstrike, can still shoot after falling back. All of this for 3 pts. is good value.

Except it's not in practice. Every marine jump unit is awful, ba included. Except for captains. Yay.

The mobility isn't the marines issue. It's an issue of marines in general.

I stopped caring about such distinctions about the time I realized my lists have no marines in them anymore.

Zustiur wrote:
For the purpose of this discussion, lets ASSUME that a basic tactical marine with bolter and bolt pistol is correctly valued at 13 points. This isn't a discussion about the value of a marine, it's a discussion about the value of mobility.

A bike is essentially two tactical marines. The price of bikes seems about on par with this. Let's examine:
1 tactical marine is T4, W1, A1, Rapid fire 1 and costs 13 points.
2 tactical marines are T4, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2 and cost 26 points.
1 bike is T5, W2, A2 (from the free chainsword), Rapid fire 2 and costs 25 points.

A theoretical 'primaris marine with storm bolter' is T4, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2. He should be worth less than 26 points because of:
* the existence of multi damage weapons
* reduction in board coverage compared to 2 tactical marines
How many points should he be exactly?

A theoretical 'tougher marine' is T5, W2, A2, Rapid fire 2 (storm bolter). How much more than the tough marine does he need to be to pay for the T5?

Now finally, back to bikes.
The differences between a bike and the tougher marine are:
* Switch from Infantry to Bike type (a bad thing because it means less interaction with terrain)
* Increase in M from 6 to 14

How much is that speed increase worth?

Similarly, how much is a jump pack worth? Is it really 3 points between assault marine with and without 12" and Fly?
Would a bolter marine with jump back be worth 16 points?
What about a theoretical fast marine who cannot deep strike and does not have Fly, but still has 12" movement?

What would a stationary marine be worth?

It's this line of "Oh-this-unit-is-worth-2-times-that-unit-because-its-characteristic-is-twice-that-unit" elementary thinking that broke marines into what they are now.

Also, Bikers are 27 pts base. You forgot that twin-boltgun are 2 pts. So in theory, a basic tac is 12ppm + 1pt boltgun.

Martel732 wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
Marines with JP can ignore models and terrain in the movement phase, they get +6" movement, they get the ability to charge flyers, can deepstrike, can still shoot after falling back. All of this for 3 pts. is good value.

Except it's not in practice. Every marine jump unit is awful, ba included. Except for captains. Yay.

This is not about marines being awful

I think this is a very easy question to answer. Unfortunately, the answer is "it depends".

There are so many other factors to consider. As an example, does the unit benefit from a larger movement stat? I'd argue that giving a unit that wants to stand still and shoot most of the time isn't worth much. Giving a melee focused assault unit the same increase is worth a lot more as it gives far more in game advantage.

You'd also need to factor in things like what sort of benefit would the unit get from an Advance move. For example, Nephrekh Dynasty Necrons can Advance 6". They don't need to roll. A Warrior's base move is 5". So, you have an "average" move + Advance of 11". Adding an inch of base movement gets you from 11" to 12", or an increase of ~9%. Taking any other Dynasty gets you an average move + Advance of 8.5", increasing to 9.5". That's an increase of ~12%. Doesn't seem like a major difference, but an extra inch of base movement is simply worth less to a Nephrekh player.

You'd probably need a major research project spanning all factions to come up with a practical answer to the question of how much an extra inch is worth.

And yes, I realize how bad that sounded.

It depends on the available alternatives as well.

Why would you take a Melter for 17 pts if you can get a Lascannon for 25?

Why would you take a flamer? Most armies have better options to kill infantry, even without taking the Guard CP battery + Mortars.

Plasmas are better on Deep Striking troops since you likely won't get into 12" if you get first turn, if you don't your unit is likely dead if it is dangerous to your opponent.


Mobility would be worth a lot if short ranged weapons (anything that is most effective under 9" = deep strike range) had a much better output than 36"-48" weapons, but that is rarely the case.

I'm not sure what sort of answers I was expecting to be honest. I agree 100% with 'it depends'. This was mainly a thought experiment to prove that rule making and game balancing is tricky. I was planning to post it in general discussion to remind all those people who say GW are terrible at writing rules that it's actually a hard thing to do. At the last minute I decided it was more appropriate here.

Zustiur wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of answers I was expecting to be honest. I agree 100% with 'it depends'. This was mainly a thought experiment to prove that rule making and game balancing is tricky. I was planning to post it in general discussion to remind all those people who say GW are terrible at writing rules that it's actually a hard thing to do. At the last minute I decided it was more appropriate here.

Oh, writing rules IS hard.

GW still sucks at it. And they don't really have an excuse-they have decades of experience and millions of dollars. It's hard, but they can hire experts.

Edit: Also, they charge lots of money for rules. I expect stuff I purchase to be high quality.

 skchsan wrote:
It's this line of "Oh-this-unit-is-worth-2-times-that-unit-because-its-characteristic-is-twice-that-unit" elementary thinking that broke marines into what they are now.

Also, Bikers are 27 pts base. You forgot that twin-boltgun are 2 pts. So in theory, a basic tac is 12ppm + 1pt boltgun.

I knew I was missing something. This is why you don't post last thing before bedtime!

Zustiur wrote:
I'm not sure what sort of answers I was expecting to be honest. I agree 100% with 'it depends'. This was mainly a thought experiment to prove that rule making and game balancing is tricky. I was planning to post it in general discussion to remind all those people who say GW are terrible at writing rules that it's actually a hard thing to do. At the last minute I decided it was more appropriate here.

No. Rules writing is easy. Game balance can be hard. Gw sucks at both.

Designing and building a car is also hard. I dont accept purchasing a car that doesnt work as intended.

As previously mentioned, the value of movement depends entirely upon a given unit’s need for mobility.

For example, having 0” movement on an artillery platform, with long range and no need for LOS, is hardly a hinderance while giving it high mobility could be situationaly useful to avoid close-range attacks. There is both offensive and defensive value to mobility, though offensive value is generally higher.

Conversely, assault units with need to close distance are all but worthless with poor mobility, and arguably gain value exponentially with increased mobility. Hypothetically, an assault unit with 72” move could engage anywhere on the board, from anywhere else on the board. Instead of firing artillery, you fire your unit and they then punch things out.

[angry marine launcher meme?]

In my opinion, the point value of mobility is a two-part factor. How much mobility does the unit have, and how critical is that movement to the unit’s function?

Assault troops with pistols and CC upgrades want high mobility to be able to engage *at all*. Bikes with ranged weapon upgrades don’t *need* the extra mobility, but it helps with target selection as they can move quickly and have greater choice in ideal targets.

I would argue that the same movement characteristic is more valuable to the assault squad than it is to the bikes. That said, I’d say the value of a marine with BP + CS without jump pack is less than that of a Bolter armed marine. So if an assault marine is only worth 9 points, then increasing its movement could make it worth 13 points as it gains the ability to fulfill its purpose.

On one hand, Mobility should always cost points, because mobility is always valuable.
You can take objectives, you can kite, you can get into combat, etc.
Even on shooty unit having a high move stat is valuable, as you can either move them to a safer place more easily or move them into a better position to shoot.

On the other hand, consider the following -
One unit has a short ranged weapon with high mobility
Another has a long ranged weapon with high mobility

Which one should pay more for their movement? Should they pay more for their movement? Is high mobility important for either of them?
On one hand, one would think that the long ranged unit would not need high mobility, and as such should pay less. But then you have a situation where said unit is cheap enough to be spammed, meaning that they could just kite your opponent all day, rendering melee orientated armies obsolete.

On the other hand, if the short ranged unit paid too little for their mobility, which they need more, then you might run into a similar situation where you can just rush them into your opponent's face, and if they pay too much then you might run into a situation where they cost too much to be fielded effectively, as if they get focused down on the first turn they would never get to use their movement.

Its a problem with a lot of factors, and one of those factors is "how are the players going to use this unit", which is a different factor all together from "what is this unit supposed to be used for"
This was most likely the reason they moved to more universal movement system in 3rd - 7th ed; less variables, so easier to manage.

Zustiur wrote:
Similarly, how much is a jump pack worth? Is it really 3 points between assault marine with and without 12" and Fly?

When the first index came out people spotted that the jump packs in 8th edition were set at roughly 25% of the base models cost.

 Kriswall wrote:
I think this is a very easy question to answer. Unfortunately, the answer is "it depends".

There are so many other factors to consider. As an example, does the unit benefit from a larger movement stat? I'd argue that giving a unit that wants to stand still and shoot most of the time isn't worth much.

JP is not only a larger movement stat. I wouldnt mind if my dev squad with their heavy weapons could have JPs for 3 pts. They could fallback when charged ignoring models/terrain, and still be able to shoot after falling back.

Give JP to a Tac Marine? Meh. Probably worth 2ppm on a currelty-13ppm model. The unit would still not be great.

Give JP to Banshees? Yes. Finally, they're good. A steal at 2ppm.

The same mobility change for the same movement on even models with the same ppm is not necessarily worth the same points.

In the above example:
-Banshees are even worse than Tacs as is
-Banshees are even cheaper than Tacs
-Banshees are already 8" movement base, so gain less movement
Yet still, despite each of those skewing against it, the same change for the same points buffs Banshees far more than Tacs.