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'm curious if they have some sort of specific formula for calculating (or at least estimating) point costs for new units... Or if they more usually make them up, with an eye towards what already exists and how the units work and so on...

Anyone have any insider info?

I would guess it's nearly all the latter case, as the same unit entries have varied quite a bit in point cost throughout the years and editions.

There is no actual formula. Point cost is complex, depending on comparable units in the codex, existing units, statline vs equipment, special rules etc.

Well it depends on the planetary alignment, the day of the week, and the number of Jose Cuervo the design team has put away on that day.

Then all the rules are translated into a randomly selected language using google translate, and then translated into another language, before finally being translated back to English.

Or something along those line. There's no formula.

They've said in designer's notes articles and interviews in the past that they just pick a startng number that looks about right, and tweak it in playtesting.


Given that there is supposedly very little actual playtesting still going on in the studio, make of that what you will...

I have to admit I was trying to be positive, because my first gut reaction was to say "they pull them out of their butt based on what they are trying to sell currently".

Back in 40K second edition, when how a squad of marines operated was exactly the same as now aside from a slight weapon profile change, a 10-man Tactical Squad was 300pts before any upgrades whatsoever. Nearly everything that is still current was pretty much twice as expensive as now in that edition.

It does at times seem pretty arbitrary, but also does seem to have some basis in playtesting.

I've heard other people say that they do no playtesting - can anyone actually confirm that they do very little? Seems kind of, well, stupid, from a business perspective. And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective. If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

majendie wrote:
And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective. If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

Its almost like that's actually happening, right now, for those reasons.

majendie wrote:
I've heard other people say that they do no playtesting - can anyone actually confirm that they do very little?

Most of the 'evidence' is fairly anecdotal... comments from interviews and games days and the like. There was at least one army book where (at least according to online scuttlebutt) one of the studio guys had mentioned in a discussion within someone at Games Day that they had played 3 games with the book during development.

But since nobody catalogues this sort of stuff, it's mostly just like that... all based on 'I read somewhere' and 'sopmeone spoke to a guy in the studio...' sort of anecdotes.


Since GW don't tell us what they're working on anymore, the internet rumour mill will happily fill in the gaps.

And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective.

Stick around for a while, that opinion may change...

If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

Yes, that's pretty much what is happening.

 insaniak wrote:
Most of the 'evidence' is fairly anecdotal... comments from interviews and games days and the like. There was at least one army book where (at least according to online scuttlebutt) one of the studio guys had mentioned in a discussion within someone at Games Day that they had played 3 games with the book during development.

There was also one WD article (maybe for the 6th edition rules?) where they mentioned a "playtesting" game where they had some weird scenario and a third player joined the game halfway in. So what little "playtesting" they do seems to be screwing around playing "fun" games instead of the kind of professional playtesting you need to do to create a balanced game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

majendie wrote:
Seems kind of, well, stupid, from a business perspective. And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective.

Unless you're GW, and you've decided that your "core market" is kids who never play the game and "casual" players who proudly brag about how bad the rules are because it means they're not one of those awful WAAC TFGs who care about doing more than pushing space marines around the table and making gun noises. So in that case playtesting doesn't make sense. It takes a lot of time and money, and doesn't add many sales with their "core market".

If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

It doesn't get broken. 40k is long past the point of being broken, the only question now is if/when it will reach a point where it's completely unplayable.

GW Point Costs... Its a tightly guarded secret know only to a few. Rumor has it, itinvolves cocktails, blindfolds, senior members of the design team, a dartboard, midget strippers, and a giant cupcake. Its postulated the cupcake and midget stripper are unessential, but merely facilitate the process.

 Blacksails wrote:

majendie wrote:
And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective. If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

Its almost like that's actually happening, right now, for those reasons.

/thread

Have an exalt, sir.

 agnosto wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:

majendie wrote:
And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective. If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

Its almost like that's actually happening, right now, for those reasons.

/thread

Have an exalt, sir.

I shall treasure it always.

*EDIT* Wait, what do you mean it doesn't show up on my profile how many people have exalted me!? I need to know how amazing I am through imaginary internet points or likes.

So upset.

 Peregrine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Most of the 'evidence' is fairly anecdotal... comments from interviews and games days and the like. There was at least one army book where (at least according to online scuttlebutt) one of the studio guys had mentioned in a discussion within someone at Games Day that they had played 3 games with the book during development.

There was also one WD article (maybe for the 6th edition rules?) where they mentioned a "playtesting" game where they had some weird scenario and a third player joined the game halfway in. So what little "playtesting" they do seems to be screwing around playing "fun" games instead of the kind of professional playtesting you need to do to create a balanced game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

majendie wrote:
Seems kind of, well, stupid, from a business perspective. And I have to say, GW are not particularly stupid from a business perspective.

Unless you're GW, and you've decided that your "core market" is kids who never play the game and "casual" players who proudly brag about how bad the rules are because it means they're not one of those awful WAAC TFGs who care about doing more than pushing space marines around the table and making gun noises. So in that case playtesting doesn't make sense. It takes a lot of time and money, and doesn't add many sales with their "core market".

If they don't put any effort into the game, it gets broken and people move over to other game systems, and they lose money...

It doesn't get broken. 40k is long past the point of being broken, the only question now is if/when it will reach a point where it's completely unplayable.

So if a game is designed and tested to be played a certain way that is not the way you are playing it how does that make the people who created it wrong?
That is like being upset at the burger king for your whopper not being a big mac.

 Baldsmug wrote:


So if a game is designed and tested to be played a certain way that is not the way you are playing it how does that make the people who created it wrong?
That is like being upset at the burger king for your whopper not being a big mac.

Because its not balanced, proofread, or tested in any meaningful ways the rules permit, and so do not find anything broken or in need of fixing.

Unfortunately for them, the rules and codices allow for a much greater range of gaming than "let's just put random models on the table and roll dice!" meaning their playtesting doesn't accomplish the goal of testing the game through game play in order to find the issues of balance and poor rules.

 Baldsmug wrote:
So if a game is designed and tested to be played a certain way that is not the way you are playing it how does that make the people who created it wrong?

That's not the case here at all. GW doesn't do this stuff because they have different design goals, they do it because they're lazy and/or incompetent. "Playtesting" with silly scenario games doesn't make a better game for "casual" players, it just makes a bad game.

Imagine if Nintenso made a super smash brothers video game, but didn't play test it at all, and 1/3 of the characters were extremely OP whilst 1/3 were embarrassingly bad. Would that be a good multiplayer game? Would you fault Nintendo at all? What if they came back and said "well you aren't supposed to try to win, you are just supposed to have a good time." Would that really make you feel better about the game or the designers?

 Baldsmug wrote:
So if a game is designed and tested to be played a certain way that is not the way you are playing it how does that make the people who created it wrong?

That, in itself, doesn't.

But that's not the issue. Desiging a game to be aimed at the casual 'just for fun' crowd doesn't excuse doing a half-assed job of creating said game. The problem with GW's rules isn't that they are aimed at that crowd. It's that they are full of holes, poorly balanced, and poorly supported in favour of just pumping out more and more new (and equally poorly-finished) new stuff.

That is like being upset at the burger king for your whopper not being a big mac.

What people are upset about is more like going to Burger King, ordering a burger without knowing what it will be until just before it arrives, and then receiving something that is missing ingredients, that you need to discuss with the person eating with you in order to obtain their permission to eat it, needs to be upsized before it makes a complete meal, and where halfway through the meal the staff insist that you buy a new drink, which will arrive half full and flat, but in a bigger, prettier cup.

orkybenji wrote:
Imagine if Nintenso made a super smash brothers video game, but didn't play test it at all, and 1/3 of the characters were extremely OP whilst 1/3 were embarrassingly bad. Would that be a good multiplayer game? Would you fault Nintendo at all? What if they came back and said "well you aren't supposed to try to win, you are just supposed to have a good time." Would that really make you feel better about the game or the designers?

Isn't that pretty much what Super Smash Brothers is... just saying.

orkybenji wrote:
Imagine if Nintenso made a super smash brothers video game, but didn't play test it at all, and 1/3 of the characters were extremely OP whilst 1/3 were embarrassingly bad. Would that be a good multiplayer game? Would you fault Nintendo at all? What if they came back and said "well you aren't supposed to try to win, you are just supposed to have a good time." Would that really make you feel better about the game or the designers?

I have a blast with Super Smash Bros games. They're not perfectly balanced by any stretch (try Samus vs. Meta Knight!) but they're crazy and silly and fun. 40k is more balanced than they are.

There isn't a hard and fast formula for points in GW stuff. You can't really put an exact points value on stuff like ATSKNF, Fearless, IG orders, Power from Pain, or whatever else. As has been stated, it's "what feels right" by the writers.

 Brother SRM wrote:

orkybenji wrote:
Imagine if Nintenso made a super smash brothers video game, but didn't play test it at all, and 1/3 of the characters were extremely OP whilst 1/3 were embarrassingly bad. Would that be a good multiplayer game? Would you fault Nintendo at all? What if they came back and said "well you aren't supposed to try to win, you are just supposed to have a good time." Would that really make you feel better about the game or the designers?

I have a blast with Super Smash Bros games. They're not perfectly balanced by any stretch (try Samus vs. Meta Knight!) but they're crazy and silly and fun. 40k is more balanced than they are.

There isn't a hard and fast formula for points in GW stuff. You can't really put an exact points value on stuff like ATSKNF, Fearless, IG orders, Power from Pain, or whatever else. As has been stated, it's "what feels right" by the writers.

I was just about to say...

I think, since, like, ever, I haven't played a fighting video game that was balanced. It doesn't mean they aren't fun. If I have to lose one more drunken Mortal Kombat: Annihilation game with "Get over here!" ringing in my freakin' ears, I'm going to stab someone with a spork.

I kind of think that for a lot of units, GW uses the old codex as a reference point. I'm sure that other units within the new dex, as well as stuff from other 'dexes, plays a factor as well, but I still don't think there's a set-in-stone system.

Robin Cruddace writing Tyranids: Arbitrarily assign values that sort of seem right at the time, add more points at the last minute because you're worried about things being OP, don't bother to playtest to see if things that might be OP actually are.

Matt Ward: Look at similar units in other army books, subtract something between 5% and 40% and make that its points cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother SRM wrote:

orkybenji wrote:
Imagine if Nintenso made a super smash brothers video game, but didn't play test it at all, and 1/3 of the characters were extremely OP whilst 1/3 were embarrassingly bad. Would that be a good multiplayer game? Would you fault Nintendo at all? What if they came back and said "well you aren't supposed to try to win, you are just supposed to have a good time." Would that really make you feel better about the game or the designers?

I have a blast with Super Smash Bros games. They're not perfectly balanced by any stretch (try Samus vs. Meta Knight!) but they're crazy and silly and fun. 40k is more balanced than they are.

I don't know about that, I've seen skilled Bowser players beat skilled Meta Knight players, I haven't seen skilled Blood Angels players beat skilled Taudar players.

chances are the points are made up from what its selling at take away the actual cost then divide it by what the directors bonus that year will be and voila point cost.

 Brother SRM wrote:
As has been stated, it's "what feels right" by the writers.

The problem is that what feels right for GW writers is totally wrong for 99% of their player base.

People assume that the world is composed of WAAC players on one side, and casual players on the other. Unfortunately, things aren't black and white. Even casual gamers enjoy a balanced game more, and even casual gamers like winning more than losing.

Back on point costs : you only need to compare a few units in this game to realise GW writers are grossly incompetent.

Dakkajet : 1XXpts

_AV10
_4.5 Strength 6 AP4 hits / turn
_Fast attack

Necron Nightscythe : 1XXpts

_AV11
_5.3 Strength 7 AP- hits / turn, possibly a lot more thanks to "Arc" Special Rule
_Ignores Crew Shaken on 2+, Crew stunned on 4+
_Dedicated transport
_Big transport capacity
_Passengers can disembark with 100% accuracy after the vehicle has moved
_Passengers can disembark after the vehicle has moved 36"...
_Passengers don't die when the vehicle is destroyed

When you see this, you think : "ok, the Nightscythe must be a lot more expensive than the Dakkajet". Well... It's actually cheaper. That's how bad GW writers are at doing their job. They have basically *no* skill at designing rules for their game. A 10-years old would do a better job really.

I thought it was like "who's line is it anyway" where everything's made up and the points don't matter. Bad jokes aside it mainly consists of incramental changes based on prievious editions with a few new or tuned rules. Some combinations of these become stupidly overpowered. Like nym said those flyers aren't balanced however the necron garbage is mostly because it was released when it was balanced on an av11 skimmer. And back then how many did you see any?

Scyrell wrote:
the necron garbage is mostly because it was released when it was balanced on an av11 skimmer. And back then how many did you see any?

Remember that Necrons were written with 6th edition in mind. And the Dakkajet was also a skimmer at that time.

A long time ago in a white dwarf far far away, there was a set of rules released (during 3rd I think), which allowed you to create your own vehicles, costing x points for this armour, y points for these weapons, z points for these special rules, etc, etc... worked pretty well. But if talking about nowadays and if the wave serpent is anything to go by, I think it all depends on how much special brew they've had that day.

 Nym wrote:

The problem is that what feels right for GW writers is totally wrong for 99% of their player base.

Yah, wasn't it the June White Dwarf where they had an interview with Phil Kelly talking about the new Eldar codex... Where he talked about how great the CC units will be... And everyone was wondering what the heck he was talking about and that they must play the game very differently than everyone else. (Can't seem to find the interview/comments online, so it might have been someone or somewhere else.)

Poly Ranger wrote:
A long time ago in a white dwarf far far away, there was a set of rules released (during 3rd I think), which allowed you to create your own vehicles, costing x points for this armour, y points for these weapons, z points for these special rules, etc, etc... worked pretty well.

The VDR was great, however, the points were intentionally inflated(if you built a standard Russ in VDR, it was more expensive than the Russ in the book). You were charged extra for your creation(often times rightly so) for it being flexible and tweaked. It was NOT a glimpse into how they actually point things in the studio.

I take it the people who claim the game is broken have stopped playing and taken their business elsewhere?
Last I heard they picked a starting point cost and worked it from there.