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.

One of the things I find interesting as I'm flipping through Rogue Trader 40k, is the Points Values system that is presented for creating your own units. I've been considering this points system, and considering updating it to more accurately reflect the benefit/value of each attribute.

As presented in RT, a baseline human would be:
Move 4, WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, LD7. And would be 5 points (I know there's more attributes, but I'm ignoring those since this is for 40k in general and not specifically RT)
Adjusting the attributes would either increase or decrease points based on this:
1/4 point per point of Move
1/2 point per point of WS
1/4 point per point of BS
1 point per point of S
1 point per point of T
4 points per point of W
1/4 point per point of Initiative
4 points per point of A
1/4 point per point of Ld

I don't like fractional points, and personally I don't mind adjusting points up in order to keep things balanced. So, after modifying points adjustments to get rid of fractions, and modifying the base stats/points value, we have this as an adjusted baseline:

Baseline Human is still: Move 4, ws3, bs3, s3, t3, w1, i3, a1, ld7, but is now 20 points
1 point per point of Move
2 points per point of WS
1 point per point of BS
4 points per point of S
4 points per point of T
16 points per point of W
1 point per point of Initiative
16 points per point of A
1 point per point of Ld

So, looking at these stats, I have some thoughts about the usefulness/effectiveness of each of these stats to modify their points values.

First I want to look at Strength vs Toughness.
Strength feels less useful than Toughness. It is only used in melee, where as Toughness helps resist shooting and melee attacks. You might consider whether your points system is going to either point your ranged weapons based on what they're capable of, or whether your points system is going to modify the value of the ranged weapon based on the strength and BS of the unit that is carrying the weapon. I for one prefer for every stat and piece of gear to be pointed based on what it can do instead of based on who is using it. So I feel like Toughness should either stay as 4 points, or be increased to 5 or 6 points, or lower strength to 3 points, and increase toughness to 5 points, I'm open to adjustments to what may be appropriate but I'll just go ahead with this as a starting point:

3 points per point of S
5 points per point of T

WS vs BS
WS worked differently in RT, BS worked very similar, but there were different weapons to use back then compared to now. I wonder what people think in general, my personal thought is that BS is more important or worth more points than WS, but I have also seen it where units get absolutely wrecked in combat, but that's usually a combination of WS, and Attacks, and no-save power weapons (older editions), vs units with no invulnerable save.

right now my gut says:
2 points per point of WS
3 points per point of BS

Movement: I feel like 2 points per point of Movement might be better than just 1. And modify the baseline from 4 to 6.

Initiative& leadership: 1 point feels right for now, hard to balance though.

Wounds & Attacks
I wonder if wounds should be a multiplier rather than an addition, since you could argue that a model that has 2 wounds lasts twice as long as one with the same stats but only with 1 wound, so it could be something like base points value x # of wounds.
For attacks, this is something that doesn't get to be used until you're in melee, but it can be quite deadly the more attacks you have, but melee is different than it was in RT. I think 16 points is still probably too much though. So preliminarily I think I would have these two be as such:

6 points per A
Either keep 16 points per W, or total other points first then multiply by # of wounds.

So the modified points value system I'm working with right now would be as such:
Baseline Human Move 6, ws3, bs3, s3, t3, w1, i3, a1, ld7: Starting baseline put at 20 points.
2 points per point of movement change
2 points per point of WS change
3 points per point of BS change
3 points per point of S change
5 points per point of T change
1 point per point of I change
6 points per point of A change
1 point per point of Ld change
Either 16 points per point of W change, or total up the base points and use #Wounds as a multiplier.

So the baseline imperial guardsman, before points for armor and equipment, would be 20 points. (probably 28 points with lasgun and 5+ armor)
A space marine with Move 6, WS4, BS4, S4, T4, W1, I4, A1 Ld7 would add +2, +3, +3, +5, +1, for 34 points base before adding armor and equipment. (probably 52 points with 3+ armor and boltgun)
A 2W space marine would be either 50 points, or 68 points. (probably 68 points or 86 points with 3+ armor and boltgun)


I know it feels inflated, and it could probably use adjustment, I'm looking for some input. Like for me, personally, I'd rather have higher points values, and thus higher points games, rather than crunching points lower to artificially lower the points values of a game or fit a certain # of units in a certain # of points, but have those crunched points feel less balanced. Maybe the baseline points should be lowered instead of the points for each stat? Baseline of 10 points? I have some idea about how many points armor should be based on my research of armor from 2nd edition, which I used to adjust the points in parenthases above, but balancing the points of weapons is something I haven't really done yet and I estimated roughly 2 points for lasgun and for boltgun despite the differences, just as a fast easy baseline.

So thoughts? Is this pointless? has someone else made a points value system that is better?

IMO the points size shouldn't really matter. If a terminator needs to cost 100pts, then that's fine.

If a game needs to be 5000pts to be a basic game that's fine too.


I've seen a wide range of points systems out there over the years for various games- BFG had a really a good one over a decade ago that did a good job of replicating every existing faction's points within it, so you feel like anything you made came out balanced against them.


One thing that is hard to capture is the relative increase - Going to M6 from M5 is potentially more valuable to than going from M3 to M4 (or vice versa).

Also, having good melee stats with slow M is going to be proportionately less valuable than having high M.

so there are potentially interactions between stats that could have affects.


I'd tend to start from a base value for 1s across the board and maybe have scaled points per stat as they go up. Just depends how accurate you want to get - i don't think GW uses complex maths for this...

BanjoJohn wrote:
One of the things I find interesting as I'm flipping through Rogue Trader 40k, is the Points Values system that is presented for creating your own units. I've been considering this points system, and considering updating it to more accurately reflect the benefit/value of each attribute.

As presented in RT, a baseline human would be:
Move 4, WS3, BS3, S3, T3, W1, I3, A1, LD7. And would be 5 points (I know there's more attributes, but I'm ignoring those since this is for 40k in general and not specifically RT)
Adjusting the attributes would either increase or decrease points based on this:
1/4 point per point of Move
1/2 point per point of WS
1/4 point per point of BS
1 point per point of S
1 point per point of T
4 points per point of W
1/4 point per point of Initiative
4 points per point of A
1/4 point per point of Ld

I don't like fractional points, and personally I don't mind adjusting points up in order to keep things balanced. So, after modifying points adjustments to get rid of fractions, and modifying the base stats/points value, we have this as an adjusted baseline:

Baseline Human is still: Move 4, ws3, bs3, s3, t3, w1, i3, a1, ld7, but is now 20 points
1 point per point of Move
2 points per point of WS
1 point per point of BS
4 points per point of S
4 points per point of T
16 points per point of W
1 point per point of Initiative
16 points per point of A
1 point per point of Ld

So, looking at these stats, I have some thoughts about the usefulness/effectiveness of each of these stats to modify their points values.

First I want to look at Strength vs Toughness.
Strength feels less useful than Toughness. It is only used in melee, where as Toughness helps resist shooting and melee attacks. You might consider whether your points system is going to either point your ranged weapons based on what they're capable of, or whether your points system is going to modify the value of the ranged weapon based on the strength and BS of the unit that is carrying the weapon. I for one prefer for every stat and piece of gear to be pointed based on what it can do instead of based on who is using it. So I feel like Toughness should either stay as 4 points, or be increased to 5 or 6 points, or lower strength to 3 points, and increase toughness to 5 points, I'm open to adjustments to what may be appropriate but I'll just go ahead with this as a starting point:

3 points per point of S
5 points per point of T

WS vs BS
WS worked differently in RT, BS worked very similar, but there were different weapons to use back then compared to now. I wonder what people think in general, my personal thought is that BS is more important or worth more points than WS, but I have also seen it where units get absolutely wrecked in combat, but that's usually a combination of WS, and Attacks, and no-save power weapons (older editions), vs units with no invulnerable save.

right now my gut says:
2 points per point of WS
3 points per point of BS

Movement: I feel like 2 points per point of Movement might be better than just 1. And modify the baseline from 4 to 6.

Initiative& leadership: 1 point feels right for now, hard to balance though.

Wounds & Attacks
I wonder if wounds should be a multiplier rather than an addition, since you could argue that a model that has 2 wounds lasts twice as long as one with the same stats but only with 1 wound, so it could be something like base points value x # of wounds.
For attacks, this is something that doesn't get to be used until you're in melee, but it can be quite deadly the more attacks you have, but melee is different than it was in RT. I think 16 points is still probably too much though. So preliminarily I think I would have these two be as such:

6 points per A
Either keep 16 points per W, or total other points first then multiply by # of wounds.

So the modified points value system I'm working with right now would be as such:
Baseline Human Move 6, ws3, bs3, s3, t3, w1, i3, a1, ld7: Starting baseline put at 20 points.
2 points per point of movement change
2 points per point of WS change
3 points per point of BS change
3 points per point of S change
5 points per point of T change
1 point per point of I change
6 points per point of A change
1 point per point of Ld change
Either 16 points per point of W change, or total up the base points and use #Wounds as a multiplier.

So the baseline imperial guardsman, before points for armor and equipment, would be 20 points. (probably 28 points with lasgun and 5+ armor)
A space marine with Move 6, WS4, BS4, S4, T4, W1, I4, A1 Ld7 would add +2, +3, +3, +5, +1, for 34 points base before adding armor and equipment. (probably 52 points with 3+ armor and boltgun)
A 2W space marine would be either 50 points, or 68 points. (probably 68 points or 86 points with 3+ armor and boltgun)


I know it feels inflated, and it could probably use adjustment, I'm looking for some input. Like for me, personally, I'd rather have higher points values, and thus higher points games, rather than crunching points lower to artificially lower the points values of a game or fit a certain # of units in a certain # of points, but have those crunched points feel less balanced. Maybe the baseline points should be lowered instead of the points for each stat? Baseline of 10 points? I have some idea about how many points armor should be based on my research of armor from 2nd edition, which I used to adjust the points in parenthases above, but balancing the points of weapons is something I haven't really done yet and I estimated roughly 2 points for lasgun and for boltgun despite the differences, just as a fast easy baseline.

So thoughts? Is this pointless? has someone else made a points value system that is better?

Like anything of this sort, it will be breakable.

Looking at what you have now...

Shooty Unit-20 base
Move 1 [-10]
WS 1 [-4]
S 1 [-6]
I 1 [-2]
A 1 [0]
Gives you -2 points, which can be spent on BS [+3/1], T [+5/1], and Ld [+1/1].

If you have sufficient range or can Deepstrike or otherwise perform a beta strike, you could even go to T1 and Ld 1, for BS 9 at baseline 0 points. If you're using old BS, then above 5 isn't super important, so...

Beta Strike Shooty Unit-Costs [Wargear Points]-12
Move 1
WS 1
BS 5
S 1
T 1
I 1
A 1
Ld 1
W 1

The number of decimals in a decimal number in a science test speaks to the accuracy of the test performed, as the margin of error of your test increases the number of decimals in your reading should decrease, So if you have a reliable test you can say 0,0001563, but if the test is unreliable you take more reading and and maybe just say 0,0002. When your points system has 40.000 points for a normal game then the assumption you are giving people is that you have a finely tuned and balanced points system, but if a normal game is 100 pts then you have a very rough points system. Rougher points systems are easier to calculate, errors and uncought cheating through a complicated points system creates unfair games.

Making a points system for 40k in general makes limited sense since stats get added or removed in different editions. Settle for one edition.

Making it fair is impossible, but I think it was typical hero who managed it somehow. But it's basically a waste of time, compare your custom unit to existing units around the same level and adjust based on gut feeling and playtesting. Unless you're literally rebalancing the whole game it wouldn't be a worthwhile endevour even if you managed to get things as balanced as hero did with his system.

The madness of things is that so much is contextual, extra durability is progressively more valuable as the unit becomes a more important target to the enemy. If you give a Guardsman an earthshaker cannon he becomes more valueable, but he is still easy to kill so your opponent will try to eliminate him, giving him a Basilisk tank to protect his earthshaker is very valueable, but giving him a Land Raider all to protect a single Basilisk is overkill and your opponent will just ignore the earthshaker to focus your other units. But what other units are available? Is your BS value being used for a bolt pistol or a lascannon? Does your immobile short ranged/melee unit have access to transports or Strats or abilities that lets them get close?

As vict says, the value of various stats are extremely contextual and dependent on eachother. Trying to come up with a formula to accurately and fairly price units based on their abilities would be a ton of work to accomplish and is likely to still have a bunch of flaws slip through the cracks.

So if a person's goal is to come up with a tool for creating new units, a complex formula is probably less useful than simply taking an existing unit, doing your best to price it fairly, and then increasing or decreasing the points cost based on how it performs over time.

To that end, you could grab a few "template" units for broad archetypes and list some suggested price modifiers for commonly-used abilities.

So you could have templates that are basically a guardsman, a marine, and a dire avenger with the serial numbers filed off, then recommend that deepstrike cost X, Y, and Z points for the first, second, and third template respectively. But even then, you'd ultimately want to set the final price based on vibes and educated guessing.

Or if you just want to play around with the formula for fun, that's cool too. Just don't be disappointed if the end result turns out to be flawed.

Maybe its just that I've done a lot of math in university, and I like doing spreadsheets at work, but the math just doesn't seem hard to me to figure out.

I can see some benefit to starting from baseline of 1 for almost all stats, everything except leadership which you could start at 1, but if you're using 2d6 you will always fail.

I could see, rather than a linear progression for each point value, that an algebraic increase could happen. For instance. Strength 1 = 1 point, strength 2 = 2 points strength 3 = 4 points strength 4 = 6 points strength 5 = 10 points strength 6 = 14 points kind of progression could make sense, and then a formula could be derived for a good baseline for each unit.

Of course, I think an earthshaker cannon should cost the same points whether its on a tank or on a guardsman, its the tank that would add the points equal to what the tank provides, and the guardsman would add the points equal to what the guardsman provides.


I'm going to run some numbers and come up with another update.

In case you are interested, I made a calculator for my own homebrew. You can find it here (with mostly German labels, but should be easy to translate):
Points calculator

Just to give you an idea how it works out:
- The regular size of a game is 2500 points.
- A Guardsman with a lasgun is 8p and pays +50p for a lascannon.
- A Tactical Marine is 35p and pays +64p for a lascannon.
- A Leman Russ Battle Tank is 374p.

The points system enables games where 30 Marines face off against 100+ Ork boys and some Dreads and it is an even game. Points alone are not the answer, though, as special rules are kinda hard to estimate correctly. But at the same time they are an easy lever for under- or overperforming units to adjust them without influencing the points for the rest of the game.

Any points system is going to be breakable.

Any points system that allots an equal number of points per stat increase will be even more breakable as each increment is not statistically equivalent.

Further, the more stats you have, the more breakable an potentially imbalanced your system will be.

I'm by no means against unit creation mechanics. I quite love them and If you've arrived at a points system that allows you to enjoy RT more then more power to you and your group. However, unit creation mechanics of any kind really only work within the confines of a group that shares a gaming perspective and/or games where a GM has influence over forces involved and other contributing factors.

GW and it's players quickly moved from self-built points to official army lists because of the break-ability of unit creation mechanics and a desire for something closer to "balance" (even if it was never completely achieved). Even open buildable systems like Grimdark Future -which is a minimal system and about as balanced as you can get- have official lists that people generally stick to to achieve a more balanced game.

I think you'd be better off establishing multiple "templates" at given values and then allowing limited modifications to them.

For instance a "Heavy Infantry" template is 15 points. You can increase its toughness by +1 for 3 points or by +2 for 7 points. But you can't buy +3 toughness, that would need to use the "Light Walker" template.

That at least imposes some hard limits and prevents what JNAP described.

I made a unit pricing system for 2nd edition 40K about 20 years ago.
I never tested it on every unit in the game but I was very proud of it in that it would replicate existing points values of units e.g. Space Marines came out at 30 points each, Guardsmen 10 points, Genestealers 28 points, etc.
The points total from the statistics is then used to calculate the value of special rules, then armour, weapons, and equipment is purchased separately.
Happy to share the rules if anyone is interested.

As others have said, the value of each point of a stat is worth a different amount depending on all the other stats.

I am curious now what would happen if instead of a giant nonlinear lookup table you used a Large Language Model (like chat GPT). You give it some prompt, "Please assign a points cost to the following unit for Xth Ed. 40k". and then give your statline.

It would definitely be trickable, but it might not be any more trickable than a table.

AI doesn't seem to do great with unit design going the other direction, but maybe it's better at assigning points than coming up with stats:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/815177.page