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.

Zookie wrote:
I wonder if someone more mathematically inclined then me could create a formula for where you can plug a weapon's strength, AP, range and type and it would spit out a point cost.

You mean based on it is now, or one that could produce a legitimately fairly points value?

Because the simplist way I see to do it is to start with a weapon that costs 0, and is 0", S0, AP- and for each incrimental improvement you add a point given number of points ((AP would likely need to count by 2s for example: 2 for AP6, 4 for AP5, 6 for AP4, 8 for AP3, 10 for AP2 and 12 for AP1 or something) (range remarked to 6" increments)). Then add a number of points for any special rule over the weapon type.

Probably can't be done cleanly with a formula, but it'd be easy to hash out with some tables.

In my opinion, there will always be an imbalance, and you just have to go with it.

It's what happens when there are different people writing different books, you get the differing opinions and biases as well as mistakes or accidents.

The only way that would make balance within the system is if you had one person writing all the books, but then everything would be very bland, and there would be very few releases.

It's just the cost of working with a team, but overall the benefits are greater than working with just one person.

 DrSchwartz wrote:
In my opinion, there will always be an imbalance, and you just have to go with it.

It's what happens when there are different people writing different books, you get the differing opinions and biases as well as mistakes or accidents.

The only way that would make balance within the system is if you had one person writing all the books, but then everything would be very bland, and there would be very few releases.

It's just the cost of working with a team, but overall the benefits are greater than working with just one person.

I agree actually. It will never be perfect, I do think it could be better though.

MTG doesn't seem to have an issue with it. They have multiple teams writing and designing their various sets but still manage to contain them fairly well.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Zookie wrote:
I wonder if someone more mathematically inclined then me could create a formula for where you can plug a weapon's strength, AP, range and type and it would spit out a point cost.

You mean based on it is now, or one that could produce a legitimately fairly points value?

Because the simplist way I see to do it is to start with a weapon that costs 0, and is 0", S0, AP- and for each incrimental improvement you add a point given number of points ((AP would likely need to count by 2s for example: 2 for AP6, 4 for AP5, 6 for AP4, 8 for AP3, 10 for AP2 and 12 for AP1 or something) (range remarked to 6" increments)). Then add a number of points for any special rule over the weapon type.

Probably can't be done cleanly with a formula, but it'd be easy to hash out with some tables.

The big problem there is that AP3/AP2 is considerably more useful than AP6/5/4 because of its utility, the only real way to determine AP specifically would be having a chart that works across all Codexes - but then we run into the problem where the game becomes monotonous and its just 'which is the best platform for weapon X'.

Wait, wait, wait.... Heavy Bolters were good in 3rd edition? Because I don't remember that being the case at all. Maybe in a unit of Devastators with only Heavy Bolters, but otherwise, they were still terrible.

And Assault Terminators were terrible in 3rd edition as well. Terminators didn't have that 5++ until about half-way through the edition and the Storm Shield was only a 4++, in close combat, against one opponent. Also terrible.

I agree things are messed up in some areas--Wraithkinghts should be out, Riptides out, and the Wave Serpent is crazy good, as are a bunch of other things. But it's always been that way. They just keep ramping things up. If they'd just ramp them down, the game would be fine. Wraithlords used to be unstoppable. Now everything's much more powerful, so they made Wraithknights, which are now what's unstoppable.

I missed 4th edition, and only played a handful of games in 5th edition with an old roommate of mine, but 6th edition seems pretty good quite honestly. I'm excited to be back in the hobby.

And for those of you who really believe the game is in its death-throes, you should probably view that as a positive thing. If the company were to fold, eliminating the possibility of new editions, I believe we would see a large community push to refine the game into what we all believe it could be; this could only end well. I am constantly amazed by the collective creative and artistic ability of the 40k community.

Either way, I think the present is as good as its been since 2nd edition (which we all know was an entirely different game) and the future looks bright, total collapse of GW or not.

 wowsmash wrote:
MTG doesn't seem to have an issue with it. They have multiple teams writing and designing their various sets but still manage to contain them fairly well.

I think that GW could do much much better than it does but it has hurdles that MTG does not.

Though MTG has a lot more individual special rules then 40k, to the best of my knowledge (have not played in years) there are only three basic values to consider mana cost, attack and defense. Most basic 40k units have 10 basic characteristics and carry a weapon that has 3 more.

Also MTG is less fluff narrative bound then 40k. If MTG wants to make a 30 foot tall fire breathing goblin then why not? But if 40k make a S5 T5 Grot with a double barrel pulse rifle it just would not mesh well.

I think these issues make consistency more difficult.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purple Saturday wrote:
Wait, wait, wait.... Heavy Bolters were good in 3rd edition? Because I don't remember that being the case at all. Maybe in a unit of Devastators with only Heavy Bolters, but otherwise, they were still terrible.

And Assault Terminators were terrible in 3rd edition as well. Terminators didn't have that 5++ until about half-way through the edition and the Storm Shield was only a 4++, in close combat, against one opponent. Also terrible.

I agree things are messed up in some areas--Wraithkinghts should be out, Riptides out, and the Wave Serpent is crazy good, as are a bunch of other things. But it's always been that way. They just keep ramping things up. If they'd just ramp them down, the game would be fine. Wraithlords used to be unstoppable. Now everything's much more powerful, so they made Wraithknights, which are now what's unstoppable.

I missed 4th edition, and only played a handful of games in 5th edition with an old roommate of mine, but 6th edition seems pretty good quite honestly. I'm excited to be back in the hobby.

And for those of you who really believe the game is in its death-throes, you should probably view that as a positive thing. If the company were to fold, eliminating the possibility of new editions, I believe we would see a large community push to refine the game into what we all believe it could be; this could only end well. I am constantly amazed by the collective creative and artistic ability of the 40k community.

Either way, I think the present is as good as its been since 2nd edition (which we all know was an entirely different game) and the future looks bright, total collapse of GW or not.

A lot of it is a nostalgia issue. There was no golden age edition and though 6th edition has its issues I don't pine for any earlier editions. (I think that a good deal of internet 40k rage is manufactured because who would be hanging around on a forum dedicated to a game they despise?)

For me 40k is all about a narrative experience. If you view the game as a RPG-wargame hybrid it makes much more sense then if you try to play it as a straight up wargame .

For me the issue is less about external balance (one army being better than another) because I can address that though scenarios and how the table is set up. What bothers me is the internal balance. 40k has dozens of cool units and weapons with fun fluff that have no real place on the table top because something else in the same army can do it better and more cost effectively.

For example, like you said heavy bolters were not amazing in 3rd edition. But they had a role. It seems a shame that such an iconic 40k weapon has no real role in 6th edition.

 Mr.Omega wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Zookie wrote:
I wonder if someone more mathematically inclined then me could create a formula for where you can plug a weapon's strength, AP, range and type and it would spit out a point cost.

You mean based on it is now, or one that could produce a legitimately fairly points value?

Because the simplist way I see to do it is to start with a weapon that costs 0, and is 0", S0, AP- and for each incrimental improvement you add a point given number of points ((AP would likely need to count by 2s for example: 2 for AP6, 4 for AP5, 6 for AP4, 8 for AP3, 10 for AP2 and 12 for AP1 or something) (range remarked to 6" increments)). Then add a number of points for any special rule over the weapon type.

Probably can't be done cleanly with a formula, but it'd be easy to hash out with some tables.

The big problem there is that AP3/AP2 is considerably more useful than AP6/5/4 because of its utility, the only real way to determine AP specifically would be having a chart that works across all Codexes - but then we run into the problem where the game becomes monotonous and its just 'which is the best platform for weapon X'.

Just because everyone has similiar tools doesn't mean they need to use them all the same way or that they'd need to be identical, just level the points costing out a bit so things operate off the same scale so that things that are better than others are priced so.

I'm not saying everything should be the same, just that things should be points costed off the same yardstick to make the game less about "who has the most undercosted gak" and more about "how do I best use my 150 points of Marines to kill that 150 points of Orks?" It moves the game to a more tactical front is all.

Zookie wrote:
I wonder if someone more mathematically inclined then me could create a formula for where you can plug a weapon's strength, AP, range and type and it would spit out a point cost.

Ovion is trying in this thread. It's fething hard.

But, as Vaktathi, Lanrak, Yonan and Peregrine all said earlier, the fundamental problem isn't points, it's that the whole ruleset needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

So let's try. I've started a thread in Proposed Rules: How would YOU Reboot 40K? Let 100 Heresies Bloom!.

My five?
1) No more player turns: players alternate moving/shooting/charging individual units
2) No more "saves": Incorporate cover into to-hit rolls & armor into Toughness
3) Homebrew Heaven: A point-cost system to price [i]individual models
4) Bigger tables + more terrain = more tactics
5) A free dice-rolling app for your phone[/i]
(Full explanations here.)

So that's 95 heresies left to go. Let's do this!

Zookie wrote:
....For me the issue is less about external balance (one army being better than another) because I can address that though scenarios and how the table is set up. What bothers me is the internal balance. 40k has dozens of cool units and weapons with fun fluff that have no real place on the table top because something else in the same army can do it better and more cost effectively.

For example, like you said heavy bolters were not amazing in 3rd edition. But they had a role. It seems a shame that such an iconic 40k weapon has no real role in 6th edition.

Oh no, I completely agree. I didn't mean to seem like I had a problem with testing the incongruities and limitations in the 40k system. If you went through my post history, you'd find me advocating similar ideas and highlighting similar problems. There are definitely units that are cool but pointless with the way things are set up, which is a shame--from both a gameplay and modeling standpoint.

It's just, these dialogues have a tendency, naturally, to get overly focused on negatives, so I wanted to send out some love. Plus as a career-long Deathwing player, I just couldn't sit idly by and hear people pine for the bad-old days. You think playing Deathwing is hard now.... I've got news for you. Times have never been better (outside of 2nd edition of course again).

If we can agree that the lack of granularity between individual models/weapons/equipment PV is causing issues.

EG only 1 point between ork IG cultist, and we need more fine adjustment,

WHY not actually cost the system at the level of interaction, the UNIT level?

Fix unit size to a set list of number of models..

EG
Ork boys mobs can be bought in 10, 20 or 30.
With a single special weapon per 10 boys in the mob.

With these fixes to unit sizes , we can apply weapon/leader load outs and simply test cost effectiveness from UNIT to UNIT.

As this takes the synergistic effects within units into account, it is much more accurate then costing fractions of the unit then multiplying any error.

EG An ork boy COULD actually be worth 4.4 points,but gains effectiveness with numerical superiority due to their 'Mob rule' up to a maximum effect of 5.2 PV.

How can you cost this accurately at the model level?
If you say Ork boys are worth 5PV, 3 mobs of 10 ork boys is over costed by 18 PV , and a single mob of 30 is under costed by 6 PV.

This is just ONE error on the cost of the BASIC troops of ONE unit due to ONE factor!
Weapon load outs , Nob leader and equipment , etc all add far more factors to consider.

After defining more accurate comparative unit costs,we can do fixed comparative play test between units to determine actual PV of UNITS.

Then we can do full play test to find the synergistic issues in forces, and limit 'synergistic imbalances' with ) limiting unit numbers , OR adding in cost multipliers to reflect improved performance...

Lanrak wrote:
WHY not actually cost the system at the level of interaction, the UNIT level?

Fix unit size to a set list of number of models..

Because some people like taking odd unit sizes. And if you're making a comprehensive re-write of the game on that scale then you might as well dump all of the rules and start over from the beginning so you can make an actual good game instead of just a slightly less bad one.

Hi Peregrine.
And there is nothing stopping people taking odd sized units,or just slapping down ANY models they think will look cool in a random senario they made up with their mates.(Or PAYING for the current 'cinematic' rules for 40k and use GWs devs ideas instead of their own... )

BUT if you want ACCURATE enough Points Values top allow random pick up games , then you need to place these sort of restrictions on units.

How many codex books have fixed unit sizes already?And would not fixing unit sizes make this more fair,and create better synergy between the game and the back ground?

I was just looking for a compromise.
Current 40k as is, is far too 'random, disjointed , counter intuitive, diffuse and non proportional to get any sort of accuracy in assigning point values.Might as well just guess like the devs do.

A complete re-write with competitive play in mind would be the optimal option of course.(Less than 40 pages of clear concise rules .)

But THE only way to get good enough PV allocation for reasonable balance in pick up games is this slight restriction on SOME units.IMO.

How many people actual take 23 ork boys out of choice?Mostly they take odd numbers due to having some odd points/models left over.

I would rather than slight restrictions on unit sizes that made ALL units viable, rather than JUST the illusion of choice 40k players currently have.

I may be in a minority though?

Making an cool sounding free for all game takes NO time or effort.
Just chuck some cool sounding ideas into a book and guess at point values , job done.

A PROPER rule set with PV and army lists SHOULD be focused on getting game balance good enough to allow enjoyable pick up game between ANY 'legal army'.
If the game is supposed to be narrative, DROP the inaccurate point values , and pick up games, and move to senarios!

I always found making up cool stories and narrative, ALOT easier than assigning accurate PV and balancing a game system,
That why most gamers pay for rules, to get the guide lines for the rules good enough to allow accurate pv costings for pick up games.

It is much easier to ignore rules that give you balance if you want to.Than try to put better balance in to a rule set.

Sorry for the rant against GW plc for taking the most inspiring game setting, and giving it the worst rule set in living memory.(IMO.)

Lanrak wrote:
BUT if you want ACCURATE enough Points Values top allow random pick up games , then you need to place these sort of restrictions on units.

No you don't. The suggestion of scaling up point values across the board allows a model currently worth 4.5 points to be worth 45 points in a new game where everything is multiplied by 10, and still keeps the ability to take the odd unit sizes that you can currently take.

How many codex books have fixed unit sizes already?

Very few of them.

And would not fixing unit sizes make this more fair,and create better synergy between the game and the back ground?

How would it make anything fairer or fluffier? The only thing it does is let you value models with fractions in the per-model cost without just scaling up all the point values to turn the fractions into whole numbers.

How many people actual take 23 ork boys out of choice?Mostly they take odd numbers due to having some odd points/models left over.

So what? Why should those options be restricted when there's no good reason to do it?

Also, I've taken plenty of odd-size units for morale purposes. For example, with Tau you often want to add an extra model or two so the threshold for a morale check from 25% losses is higher, but you don't always want to go all the way up to a full-size squad.

Hi Peregrine.
Just up scaling the costing of models allows more differentiation for each model.BUT completely fails to deal with synergistic issues in unit compilation.

If you are taking odd sized units for morale purposes, this sort of proves my point does it not?

If you can see synergistic bonus/ penalties for SLIGHT changes in unit sizes to morale.Then what about the synergistic anomalies the rest of the unit options generate?

It is impossible to accurately cost a unit from the component parts , when there is such a massive amount of variance in unit composition and effect.

The best option would be a total re -write of the rules focusing on accurate costing and proportional interaction results.

The next best option is to apply cost per COMPLETE unit..
This may mean removing some 'ARTIFICIAL' choices for practical reasons , but would allow more ACTUAL valid choices for more competitive play.
And as the ONLY valid reason to use Points Values is to get enough balance for enjoyable balanced pick up games.

You either take restrictions to allow accurate points, or just do not bother with point values and play a totally narrative game.

Lnarak, as someone who had a unit locked at 10 or more models (Battle Sisters) it sucked. I could never fit my HQs in the units if I wanted them in a Rhino.

Locking unit sizes may be easier, but it's also punishing players and honestly "easy" isn't always "right".

This thread is a prime example of why rules should be left to games developers, not the fans. The sort of rigid points system you guys are advocating would suck all the fun right out of the game, as well as being essentially impossible to impliment - units are only ever important as a part of their army, price is supposed to reflect this.

The imperial guard infantry squad cost takes into account orders, commissars, priests and special rules, it is not simply an aggregate total of stats + wargear. Similarly, cultists are *expected* to be used in conjunction with other units, and their points cost reflects this.

I think in general, points costs are about right. If unit x is 2% more powerful than unit y at the same point cost, then woo. But that doesn't bother me, outside of a few units that need their points tweaking.

xruslanx wrote:
This thread is a prime example of why rules should be left to games developers, not the fans. The sort of rigid points system you guys are advocating would suck all the fun right out of the game, as well as being essentially impossible to impliment - units are only ever important as a part of their army, price is supposed to reflect this.

The imperial guard infantry squad cost takes into account orders, commissars, priests and special rules, it is not simply an aggregate total of stats + wargear. Similarly, cultists are *expected* to be used in conjunction with other units, and their points cost reflects this.

I think in general, points costs are about right. If unit x is 2% more powerful than unit y at the same point cost, then woo. But that doesn't bother me, outside of a few units that need their points tweaking.

While I think you hit the nail on the head here, there is a problem with "points creep" where things keep getting progressively cheaper so the same size games use more and more models (compare 1.5k of Marines in 2nd to now for example). I think the game should go the other way so there can be more of a gap between models than there is now.

 Yonan wrote:
I dislike the 40k rules system, I think it's long past reevaluation and just needs to be put out of its misery with a complete rewrite. I was considering a "patch" to balance the codices but decided against it due to the cumbersome and outdated mechanics at its core. Instead I'm working on a conversion for the upcoming Deadzone to make 40k armies playable with it. It's skirmish scale rather than 40+ model scale though. Probably wouldn't mean anything to you if you're not following Deadzone, but here's the Deadzone 40K article here on dakka, with google spreadsheet links to the very rough rules atm.

That read doesnt list Orks as a Army???

I never said to fix the unit sizes in a stupid short sighted way to limit transport options did I?

I agree that game development is best left to game developers.
Unfortunately it is left up to the sales department at GW towers.

Restricting unit sizes to 2 or 3 options , that makes ALL units viable.Is better than having the illusion of choice , until you encounter other armies/players.IMO.

Lanrak wrote:
I never said to fix the unit sizes in a stupid short sighted way to limit transport options did I?

I agree that game development is best left to game developers.
Unfortunately it is left up to the sales department at GW towers.

Restricting unit sizes to 2 or 3 options , that makes ALL units viable.Is better than having the illusion of choice , until you encounter other armies/players.IMO.

Restricting unit sizes like that does limit options though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Lnarak, as someone who had a unit locked at 10 or more models (Battle Sisters) it sucked. I could never fit my HQs in the units if I wanted them in a Rhino.

Locking unit sizes may be easier, but it's also punishing players and honestly "easy" isn't always "right".

To be fair, they do this in warmachine. Squads are either set sizes, or have min/max sizes.

And being honest, it's fine. It doesn't hurt the game, nor does it hurt my choices as a player.

Then again, it's an excellently balanced game, so that helps too

Deadnight wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Lnarak, as someone who had a unit locked at 10 or more models (Battle Sisters) it sucked. I could never fit my HQs in the units if I wanted them in a Rhino.

Locking unit sizes may be easier, but it's also punishing players and honestly "easy" isn't always "right".

To be fair, they do this in warmachine. Squads are either set sizes, or have min/max sizes.

And being honest, it's fine. It doesn't hurt the game, nor does it hurt my choices as a player.

Then again, it's an excellently balanced game, so that helps too

You also don't have transports to try and fit units into in Warmachine. It's one of the things that makes it not work here.

Deadnight wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Lnarak, as someone who had a unit locked at 10 or more models (Battle Sisters) it sucked. I could never fit my HQs in the units if I wanted them in a Rhino.

Locking unit sizes may be easier, but it's also punishing players and honestly "easy" isn't always "right".

To be fair, they do this in warmachine. Squads are either set sizes, or have min/max sizes.

And being honest, it's fine. It doesn't hurt the game, nor does it hurt my choices as a player.

Then again, it's an excellently balanced game, so that helps too

Until you, or your oponent gets a lucky roll and ends the game by killing off your/his main dude/gal, regardless of how much better you where than him/her

Readjusting the point values in WH 40K would be a lot like slapping a coat of paint on a leaky boat. There are much greater issues with the game than the superficial (even if obvious) points attributed to units and their war gear.

And as of this thread. I completely agree with what xruslanx wrote.

There are simply too many players that focuses on numbers and stats alone without considering their actual impact on the game.
Also, while some rules in 6th certainly are poorly written, I also still think that most of the negative bile of crap comes from TFG's who abuse loopholes and then people blame GW for not EXPLICITLY explaining the rules for that 1 scenario.

"Grav-guns ignores cover on vehicles because GW didn't write that grav-guns rolls rolls for penetration so it can't get cover"
- TFG #1 rulelawering for WAAC

"My ENTIRE unit gets inv save on the skyshield landing pad, even when I have only 1 model of the unit on top of the landing pad. The rules says 'unit' and not 'models'"
- TFG #2 rulelawering for WAAC

I could go on but my point is still that even with it's flaws, 6th's rules are actually much more smooth and more balanced than it's former editions.

As for the pointsystem needing a rework, I honestly think it's an okay system, it's that few things needed readjustments to justify their costs (rather than attempting to rewrite a whole new system). Fx. Heavybolter could be changed to Salvo 2/3, that would make the Heavybolter viable for 10 points and still not feth anything else up.

Zewrath wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Lnarak, as someone who had a unit locked at 10 or more models (Battle Sisters) it sucked. I could never fit my HQs in the units if I wanted them in a Rhino.

Locking unit sizes may be easier, but it's also punishing players and honestly "easy" isn't always "right".

To be fair, they do this in warmachine. Squads are either set sizes, or have min/max sizes.

And being honest, it's fine. It doesn't hurt the game, nor does it hurt my choices as a player.

Then again, it's an excellently balanced game, so that helps too

Until you, or your oponent gets a lucky roll and ends the game by killing off your/his main dude/gal, regardless of how much better you where than him/her

That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced. It just means you got outplayed and let yourself open for an assassination. No, it just means nothing else other than you took your eyes off the ball. Learning how to protect your caster is one of the first and most vital parts of the game.

For what it's worth, assassination is an integral part of the game. Just like losing your king in chess. Builds exist that aim for that win condition, just as there are builds that aim to win via scenario. Neither is strictly better or worse, and frankly, the fact that plan b always remains open is a good thing. You're never out of the game, and similarly, you're never safe, don't get complacent.

I didn't and I lose? Fair play to my opponent, I'll shake their hand and tell them good game.

xruslanx wrote:
This thread is a prime example of why rules should be left to games developers, not the fans.

I totally agree, now if only GW could hire some we'd be set