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.

paulyf wrote:
I take it the people who claim the game is broken have stopped playing and taken their business elsewhere?

Or they're just focusing on another part of Warhammer, like I do. The less I play, the more I paint. And when you have 4000k of Orks with nearly half sitting unpainted on your desk, it's not a bad thing.

 Nym wrote:
When you see this, you think : "ok, the Nightscythe must be a lot more expensive than the Dakkajet". Well... It's actually cheaper.

It's not actually quite that simple. You can't just compare the points costs of individual units between codexes and expect them to mean anything, because the function and effectiveness of those units is different depending on how those different armies function.

Even within the same army, two identical things can have different levels of effectiveness. This is why in the Marine codexes, heavy weapons in Devastator squads are priced differently to heavy weapons in Tactical squads.

majendie wrote:
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?

They usually just start with a random number between 5 and 50 and then give it upgrade costs in multiples of 5.

 insaniak wrote:
You can't just compare the points costs of individual units between codexes and expect them to mean anything

Actually, you can. I really don't know where people got this idea that point costs couldn't be compared between codexes.

The Point system exists specifically to allow units from different codexes to stand an equal chance on the tabletop. If a Space Marine in Codex: Space Marines costs 15pts, you can't have the same Space Marines in Codex: Dark Angels cost 30pts.

I won't deny that units need a point adjustement based on their role or utility within their codex, but you have to keep some sense of scale when you do so. Having a Space Marine cost 15pts in one codex and 16 or 17 in another might be ok, but having a flyer like the Vendetta get AV12, 3 TL-LC, transport capacity, extra armour and all kind of crazy stuff for 20% less than the cost of a Predator is just bad design. And the sad thing is that you don't even need to compare things between codexes to see how bad GW writers are, because that same Vendetta costs less than 2 Armored Sentinels armed with NON-Twinlinked Lascannons, and the Sentinels are arguably worse in every single way compared to a Vendetta.

 insaniak wrote:
Even within the same army, two identical things can have different levels of effectiveness. This is why in the Marine codexes, heavy weapons in Devastator squads are priced differently to heavy weapons in Tactical squads.

Not anymore they aren't. Devs and Tacts both pull weapons from the same wargear lists now.

 Nym wrote:
The Point system exists specifically to allow units from different codexes to stand an equal chance on the tabletop.

...within that army.

To take an extreme example, a guy with BS8 is far more valuable in an army designed to stand and shoot than he would be in an army that doesn't have any ranged weapons.

Armies are (theoretically at least) designed with a particular playstyle in mind. Units are costed at least in part based in part on how they perform within the way that army functions. A unit that is hugely effective in one army is going to be average in another, and next to useless in a third, dependong on how those armies function on the tabletop.

If a Space Marine in Codex: Space Marines costs 15pts, you can't have the same Space Marines in Codex: Dark Angels cost 30pts.

Sure you can, if Codex Dark Angels has other things that balance out the fact that their tactical marines are more expensive.



Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the codexes are all perfectly balanced. Just contesting the idea that a straight comparison of units across armies actually tells you anything useful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Not anymore they aren't. Devs and Tacts both pull weapons from the same wargear lists now.

That's an interesting change of direction. I haven't seen the new Marine codex (and am not really likely to any time soon) so wasn't aware if that little change.

They use a dart board, definitely a dart board.

Pretty sure peyote or PCP get involved somewhere in there.

The last time we chatted to Gav Thorpe , he said they guesstimated the points for basic models and equipment, by comparison to other models and equipment.

THEN (after limited )play testing gauge how effective the ARMY is as a whole and point stuff at 3/4 of their optimum values.

GW game developers are developing the game for minature collectors, and the new customers who never get around to playing a full game anyway.(Eg just writing 'inspiring' rules and background to promote short term minature sales.)

For each unit they grab 2x D20, roll them..... done

 Nym wrote:
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.

That's why it seems like rules are written in a vacuum.

I always try to avoid doing that.

A picture is worth 1000 words.

At this point they probably just look at point cost in the previous edition of the armies codex then compare it to similar units already in the updated rules and go from there.

One trend if you go back several editions is point costs seem to trend down, which allows GW to sell more models. I feel like the GW template for success is increase price of actual models, while decreasing on the table costs, therefore requiring players to purchase more models.

riburn3 wrote:
At this point they probably just look at point cost in the previous edition of the armies codex then compare it to similar units already in the updated rules and go from there.

There is a lot of validity to that statement. Look at the C:SM dreadnought. That model has no business being 100 base points in today's meta. The changes to 6th edition have made that nearly pointless.

However, the model is still valued at 100 points base, and has been roughly the same cost for many releases through various marine codex's. The reason is that GWs developers assumed that the model is still valued at the same, instead of realizing that it has changed in relative power to the other models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
It's not actually quite that simple. You can't just compare the points costs of individual units between codexes and expect them to mean anything, because the function and effectiveness of those units is different depending on how those different armies function.

Respectfully, I disagree. You can look at the math behind units and quickly determine which are 'better'. The trick is to ensure your comparing apples to apples.

Let me give an example of an equally balanced set of units.. A base SoB troop costs 12 points, where a CSM costs 13 points. For one more point the CSM gets +1 WS, Toughness and Str. The SoB gets +1 DtW and a 6+ invlun save. This is a good example of balance between equally paired units doing an equal task.

An example of unit disparity is the "DakkaJet vs NightScythe", or "Wave Serpent vs Devilfish" These vehicles fill identical roles, yet they are dramatically different in power. So much so, you never see them in competitive events -- for a reason.

riburn3 wrote:
At this point they probably just look at point cost in the previous edition of the armies codex then compare it to similar units already in the updated rules and go from there.

One trend if you go back several editions is point costs seem to trend down, which allows GW to sell more models. I feel like the GW template for success is increase price of actual models, while decreasing on the table costs, therefore requiring players to purchase more models.

Nailed it.

There is another factor, though: personal bias.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Let me give an example of an equally balanced set of units.. A base SoB troop costs 12 points, where a CSM costs 13 points. For one more point the CSM gets +1 WS, Toughness and Str. The SoB gets +1 DtW and a 6+ invlun save. This is a good example of balance between equally paired units doing an equal task.

Now try to do the same with a Space Marine.
Both Sisters of Battle and SM were made at the same time, yet it is obvious that one cannot be compared to the other. The person writing Codex:SM wanted the basic troop to be far better than it should. CSM and SoB didn´t get that extra buff.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

Something to add here: logic.

Many people write fan-codex. I have been doing it for decades. It is really hard to play-test and after a while it is easy to know when something has been properly tested and when someone is proposing an untested unit. And GW (and FW) does not play-test. A handful of friendly games and that´s all. And they do changes after that and do not use change management at all.

Some examples:
The Avenger fighter. The first time you play test the unit you find that the Defensive weapon does not work. It is a S4 weapon that can only be used against flyers.
Mandrakes and the decapitator. By extension, infiltrated assault units in 6th edition.
Wound allocation. Tested in easy cases, but not in mixed units.
Look out sir! This was never properly tested before 6th edition hit

Regarding balance, GW´s codexes cannot compare with the lovely stuff you find in the Proposed Rules of many forums.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2012/11/french-games-day-interview-with-robin.html

"I asked him how they playtested new rules. Robin explained they have an inhouse team dedicated to that and they call upon renowned tournament players to assist. When I asked him about an open beta for a new edition (like PP did for Warmachine Mk2), he did not seem to keen."

dart board.

 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.

If you h8 the GW rules so much why the feth are even still playing this game?

I cannot speak for him.

For me, it is the background.

20 years worth of inertia, in my case.


And the vague hope that 7th ed following 6th will be what 5th ed was after 4th...

majendie wrote:
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?

All one has to do is set the 5th edition space marine codex and the DA, BA, SW and BT codecies side by side to see that it is all pulled out of thin air and mostly up to the whims of the author of the given codex. Space marines should be the one line that is perfectly balanced with itself as you have a baseline codex that you can base all of the other books off of, but they just don't do it. For example if you pay 15 points for a devastator in the baseline codex and 20 points for a las cannon upgrade, a Long fang should cost more than 15 points per model, with their ability to split fire, and a las cannon should still cost them 20 points. Instead we got long fangs that are cheaper than devastators AND paying less for their heavy weapons to boot. If they can't balance and standardize the points across a set of books that are all based on the same kind of army, then they aren't going to be able to do it for the rest of the armies out there either. This is why there is a constant chatter of Unit X in one codex costing a set amount of points, while Unit Y in a different codex is much more capable, but actually costs less than unit X. It happens all the time and keeps happening. Heck they can't even seem to balance such things in the same codex even.

I have long wondered if the GW codex authors function like more of a monastary than a business as it seems like the codex authors go into seclusion and pretend like nothing else exists other than the new codex they are writing, and that often seems to include being cognizant of the current ruleset, or even the way the PREVIOUS codex for that army worked and played...

Skriker

majendie wrote:
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?

It tends to be something like: "this unit is kinda more powerful than that one, but it's slower, so let's give it the same point cost, and then play it against lots of combinations of enemies, until I know how good/bad it is".

And then there is the Doom.

A: This guy seems really powerful for 100 points.
B: Better make it 90 points.
A: Why?
B: He only has a 5+ armour save. He'll get taken out easily by bolter fire.

 Happyjew wrote:
And then there is the Doom.

A: This guy seems really powerful for 100 points.
B: Better make it 90 points.
A: Why?
B: He only has a 5+ armour save. He'll get taken out easily by bolter fire.

qft XD

 sing your life wrote:
If you h8 the GW rules so much why the feth are even still playing this game?

I play 40k *in spite* of the crappy rules because I love the minis and the background to the game and just don't have the time to reinvent the wheel and port all my 40k stuff over to a better system these days. I do play a lot less 40k these days due to the fact that it is just more enjoyable to play better written games more often...

Skriker

 da001 wrote:
The Avenger fighter. The first time you play test the unit you find that the Defensive weapon does not work. It is a S4 weapon that can only be used against flyers.

TBH this isn't really a good example. What almost certainly happened here is they put the gun on the model because it looks cool (and fluff-wise a defensive heavy stubber makes sense), and had to give it rules because otherwise people would wonder why the model has a gun that the rules don't include. Adding "fluffy" rules that have no real impact on balance is just something that GW does.

 insaniak wrote:

 Nym wrote:
When you see this, you think : "ok, the Nightscythe must be a lot more expensive than the Dakkajet". Well... It's actually cheaper.

It's not actually quite that simple. You can't just compare the points costs of individual units between codexes and expect them to mean anything, because the function and effectiveness of those units is different depending on how those different armies function.

Even within the same army, two identical things can have different levels of effectiveness. This is why in the Marine codexes, heavy weapons in Devastator squads are priced differently to heavy weapons in Tactical squads.

Ummm...every other game out there does their best to do this as it isn't how a unit acts in its ARMY that matters, but what impact it has on other units that matters. If two units have the exact same stats and a BS of 8, and a comparative selection of long range weapons to choose from the models should cost EXACTLY the same points within the context of the game. It doesn't matter if one model is in a "shooty" army and the other is in a "melee" army. They both will have the same direct impact on the game and enemy units as a BS 8 unit. Of course even units within a single GW codex are seldom balanced with others in the codex. Look at any unit that is spammed regularly in net lists and you will find a unit that's advantages are far superior to what its point costs represent. Vendettas, night scythes, etc., etc...also look at those units that people call useless because within their codex they cost more than the benefits they provide warrant. How many times do people need to say "Why would you take anything but vendettas for fast attack in your IG army" before it is clear that they are broken and have not been balanced at all with the rest of the book?

Skriker

 Skriker wrote:
If two units have the exact same stats and a BS of 8, and a comparative selection of long range weapons to choose from the models should cost EXACTLY the same points within the context of the game. It doesn't matter if one model is in a "shooty" army and the other is in a "melee" army. They both will have the same direct impact on the game and enemy units as a BS 8 unit.

This is not true at all because you have a "critical mass" effect in a lot of cases. For example, a single Rhino is a lot less effective when it's the only vehicle on the table than when it's part of an army with a dozen other Rhinos. A BS 8 model in an assault army isn't all that great because you have to leave it back to shoot and therefore split your army into shooting and assault elements. A BS 8 model in a gunline army, on the other hand, is awesome because it can sit back and shoot along with the rest of your army. In fact, because of the way BS works in 40k (with diminishing returns over BS 5), a BS 8 model in a pure assault army might actually be worth less than a BS 5 model in a gunline army.

 Happyjew wrote:
And then there is the Doom.

A: This guy seems really powerful for 100 points.
B: Better make it 90 points.
A: Why?
B: He only has a 5+ armour save. He'll get taken out easily by bolter fire.

Which was more true in 5th when he was written as he couldn't Iron Arm.

 Peregrine wrote:

 da001 wrote:
The Avenger fighter. The first time you play test the unit you find that the Defensive weapon does not work. It is a S4 weapon that can only be used against flyers.

TBH this isn't really a good example. What almost certainly happened here is they put the gun on the model because it looks cool (and fluff-wise a defensive heavy stubber makes sense), and had to give it rules because otherwise people would wonder why the model has a gun that the rules don't include. Adding "fluffy" rules that have no real impact on balance is just something that GW does.

It is just my opinion, but I have been making rules since I was a teenager (long long ago) and I feel really bad if a rule I wrote is never used because a basic rule invalidates it in every possible situation.

Step 1: the model has a heavy stubber -> you add it. The you add the air-only rule, because it seems cool.
Step 2: you see it is obviously not working through play testing.
Step 3: you fix it. You add special ammo, another special rule... whatever. In a worst case scenario, you abandon the rule and the heavy stubber has no special rule at all, thus following the basic rules for weapons.

For me it is apparent that step 3 is missing because the 2 is missing too. You do not let such a glaring problem go to a fandex, let alone a professional work. It would be embarrasing. It is too obvious.

And it is not a fluffy rule. The fluff says that the weapon is effective against flyers. That´s the problem with the rule: it breaks the background. Whenever I have a rule in mind it is because of the background. It is all that matters. A rule is a good rule if it follows the background, if it is fun and if it is not awfully complicated or slow. But the first step for a new rule is always the fluff.

The Nephilim´s missiles have a similar problem. But not that glaring. It they were S4, it would be a similar situation, but then again the problem is not caused by a special rule. It is a balance problem, and play-test struggles finding balance problems.