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.

This was something I was playing with in my free time and since I posted it over in News and Rumors I figured I'd share it here. Butcher the concept/execution as you see fit:

Because of this I’ve worked out a fairly simple system for determining how much models cost points wise. This is done by following steps much like one would for equipping a model with additional wargear and starting with a base profile and building it up from there. I’m going to lay out the basic set-up and walk through how it’d apply to a Space Marine, an Imperial Guardsman, a Carnifex and then a Rhino. The base profile always starts at a cost of 0 points and is adjusted from there

Non-Vehicle Models
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.2.1.1.1..5.....-..Infantry

Add 1 point:
For each additional point a characteristic is improved by
Each point save is improved by
For adding an adding an additional type to the model’s type (example: adding Jump to make the model a Jump Infantry model or making the model a Character)
If the model is a Scoring model
For each special rule added to the model that only has one mechanic (examples: Fear, Fleet)
For offensive grenades
For defensive grenades
Subtract 1 point:
For each point the model’s characteristics are lowered by
Add 2 points:
For each special rule that has more than one mechanic (example: Zealot, Chapter Tactics)
Changing the model’s Type to Beast, Cavalry or Bike
Add 10 points:
Changing the creature to Jetbike
Add 50 Points:
Change model’s type to Monstrous Creature
Add 75 points:
Changing the model’s type to Flying Monstrous Creature

Ranged Weapons
Range S AP Type
6”..........1..-....Rapid-Fire

If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 0 Points:
Changing weapon type to “Pistol”, Heavy, or Salvo
Subtract 1 Point:
Adding Gets Hot
Add 1 Point:
For each 6” increment the weapon’s maximum range is increased by
For each point in strength the weapon gains
For each point the weapon’s AP is improved by
For changing the Weapon type to “Assualt”
For each additional shot the weapon can fire over the first (excludes Rapid Fire and Pistol, all other weapon types fire 1 shot base)
For each additional special rule the weapon has (excluding Gets Hot and Poison)
Add 2 Points:
For changing the strength to X
If the weapon has the Poison Special Rule

Melee Weapons
Range S..........AP..Type
-............User......- ...Melee

If a Weapon has more than one profile only pay for the highest cost for each category. If the weapon is both a ranged and a melee weapon pay for both profiles separately.
Add 1 Point:
For each point of strength it increases the bearer by (example: +1, +2, ect)
For each point of AP the weapon is improved by
For each additional rule the weapon gains (excluding Instant Death and Poison)
For each additional point that it increases the bearer’s stats by (example: +1 Initiative)
For each point the weapon modifies and opposing model’s stats by (example: -1, -2, ect)
Add 5 Points:
If the weapon multiplies the bearer’s strength (example: x2, x3)
If the weapon has the Instant Death special rule
If the weapon wounds on a fixed number or has the Poison special rule

Vehicles
WS BS S FA SA RA I A HP Type
...-....1....-...9...9...9...-..-..1.......-

Add 1 Point:
Each point that a characteristic value is raised by (“-” counts as “0”, excludes Hull Points)
Every model the vehicle can carry
Each special rule added to the model
For Each Access Point
For each Fire Point
Add 5 Points:
Each additional vehicle type added to the vehicle (to include it’s initial type (ex: walker, tank, includes the Transport type)
Each additional Hull Point beyond the first
Add 100 Points:
If Vehicle is a Super Heavy (this is in addition to the 5 points for changing it's type)

Examples:
Tactical Space Marine
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
.4.....4...4.4.4.1.1...8..3+.Infantry, And They Shall No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads
COST:
+18 Characteristic Increase
+1 Scoring
+2 And They Shall No Fear
+2 Chapter Tactics
+1 Combat Squads
+8 Bolter (shown below)
+5 Bolt Pistol (shown below)
Total: 37 Points/model (doesn't include Grenades due to simplicity's sake here)

Bolter
Range S AP Type
24”........4..5...Rapid-Fire
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP
Total: 8 Points

Bolt Pistol
Range S AP Type
6”..........4...5..Pistol
+3 Strength
+2 AP
Total: 5 Points

Imperial Guardsman
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
..3.....3..3.3.3.1.1...7..5+.Infantry, Orders, Combined Squads
COST:
+10 Characteristic Improvement
+2 for Save
+1 Scoring
+1 Combined Squads
+1 Orders
+5 Lasgun (shown below)
Total: 20 Points

Lasgun:
Range S AP Type
24”.......3...-.....Rapid-Fire
COST:
+3 Range
+2 Strength
Total: 5 points

Carnifex:
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
..3.....3..9 6 2 4 3 7 3+ Monstrous Creature, Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
COST:
+23 Characteristic Increases
+50 Monstrous Creature
+3 Fearless, Living Battering Ram, Instinctive Behaviour (Feed)
+0 Two Pairs Scything Talons (shown below)
Total: 76 Points

Scything Talons:
Range S AP Type
-...........User.....-....Melee
+0 Points

Rhino:
WS BS S FA SA RA I A HP Type
..-....4....-..11..11...10...-..-..3....Tank, Transport
COST:
+8 Characteristic Increases
+10 (+2 HP)
+10 Capacity
+10 Tank, Transport
+3 Access Points
+2 Fire Points
+10 Storm Bolter
Total: 53 Points

Storm Bolter:
Range S AP Type
24”.......4..5...Assault 2
COST:
+3 Range
+3 Strength
+2 AP
+1 Assault
+1 Shot
Total: 10 Points

If nothing else I think this will be a great way to create your own rules that are appropriately costed.

Can't remember where I saw this but I remember a screenshot from some RT thing where this was attempted, and horribly unbalanced. I'm not even going to go on the typical anti-GW spiel but you know where this is going.

danny1995 wrote:
If nothing else I think this will be a great way to create your own rules that are appropriately costed.

Well, more appropriately costed than GW's current rules. It's not like a sudden up shift in points would get us to stop playing, we'd just take our collections and play bigger games.

Personally am trying the points by average effectiveness

I have to say man it gets overwhelming really quickly.

Id be careful of the 1point per stat as each individual stats are really that equal between each other.

Initiative is not as worth it as a wound or BS.

as well BS is more effective than WS (unless you change the assault system)

 ZultanQ wrote:
Can't remember where I saw this but I remember a screenshot from some RT thing where this was attempted, and horribly unbalanced. I'm not even going to go on the typical anti-GW spiel but you know where this is going.

GW's poor points balancing (read: "completely subjective and not tied to any standard metrics beyond a gut feeling method") is what inspired the idea honestly. I only spent about two hours typing this up so I can't promise that it's perfect but I did put some thought into this at least.

An increase from WS3 to WS4 is worth more than an increase from 7 to 8. Similarly, an increase in T is much more valuable than an increase in I.

Just as an example of why I think this is a bad idea:

"Brick-class" Terminator

WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.6.1.10.1..1.....2+..Infantry, Fearless, Eternal Warrior

+5 points for +5 T.

+6 points for 2+ armour.

+9 points for Wounds

+2 points for Fearless

+1 Point (TROLOLOLOL) for Eternal Warrior

23 points for a T6 W10 2+ armour model with Fearless. Sure, it's not killing anything, but you're never ever killing it in return, either. Actually, make it 25 and add in Smash. Place that on an objective and proceed to guffaw at your enemy as he can't ever remove your Troops from it.

In fact, we could make it a Jetbike and still have it be 2 PPM cheaper than a Tactical Marine.

 Desubot wrote:
Personally am trying the points by average effectiveness

I have to say man it gets overwhelming really quickly.

Id be careful of the 1point per stat as each individual stats are really that equal between each other.

Initiative is not as worth it as a wound or BS.

as well BS is more effective than WS (unless you change the assault system)

The idea is that they pay for EVERYTHING so regardless of what you pump into them it adds up. Putting things on a sliding scale negates things like being fast but fragile (Eldar), which can be just as useful as a tougher model, and assuming that everything only worth more because it's tougher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
An increase from WS3 to WS4 is worth more than an increase from 7 to 8. Similarly, an increase in T is much more valuable than an increase in I.

Just as an example of why I think this is a bad idea:

"Brick-class" Terminator

WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.6.1.10.1..1.....2+..Infantry, Fearless, Eternal Warrior

+5 points for +5 T.

+6 points for 2+ armour.

+9 points for Wounds

+2 points for Fearless

+1 Point (TROLOLOLOL) for Eternal Warrior

23 points for a T6 W10 2+ armour model with Fearless. Sure, it's not killing anything, but you're never ever killing it in return, either. Actually, make it 25 and add in Smash. Place that on an objective and proceed to guffaw at your enemy as he can't ever remove your Troops from it.

In fact, we could make it a Jetbike and still have it be 2 PPM cheaper than a Tactical Marine.

The point was less to make ridiculious options like that and more as a thing I was doing at addressing how GW currently points costs things. Common sense in design still applies here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will conceed however that Eternal Warrior should probably cost 10 points for such a thing. Forgive me for not thinking of every silly thing people would try to do with it and instead looking at a way to rebalance the game when I hammered this out in a two hour period. I know it's not perfect and I really didn't design it to be used to make gak options but figure out how much something -should- cost.

Having played games like Colonial Battlefleet and Song of Blades and Heroes I gotta say if you want this to be balanced it requires a huge amount of work and a lot of excel spreadsheets.

Theres two very big mistakes right now that would need to be addressed first. The first one is that going from say, S3 to S4, is a very different beast than S9 to S10. Or WS 5 vs WS 4, thats a biggy, I'd call WS5 the best WS in the game. 4+ armour is terrible, and not priced well relative to other armour values. Stuff like that.

The second is that the USR pricing definitely needs some expansion. But thats a given.

This is fascinating but would require recosting, um, everything.First task is getting it internally consistent, of course....I'll ponder.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Having played games like Colonial Battlefleet and Song of Blades and Heroes I gotta say if you want this to be balanced it requires a huge amount of work and a lot of excel spreadsheets.

Theres two very big mistakes right now that would need to be addressed first. The first one is that going from say, S3 to S4, is a very different beast than S9 to S10. Or WS 5 vs WS 4, thats a biggy, I'd call WS5 the best WS in the game. 4+ armour is terrible, and not priced well relative to other armour values. Stuff like that.

The second is that the USR pricing definitely needs some expansion. But thats a given.

Oh I admit that this thing isn't perfect, but I also admit I only spent 2 hours on it so far and most of that was typing.

I feel that a lot of stuff in 40k needs a rework (like that the next edition should basically pull a 2nd edition and throw everything we expect in a bin and go from there), to include how all the stats basically work but the concept is still sound even if the exact execution needs some work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SisterSydney wrote:
This is fascinating but would require recosting, um, everything.First task is getting it internally consistent, of course....I'll ponder.

True, it would need a lot of work, but the core concept would improve the game overall I think.

You're never going to get more than a rough approximation of a unit's "fair" cost with this kind of system, which makes it pointless. Even ignoring deliberate attempts to min/max a unit that breaks your system (which is easily done) you still have the huge problem of rules and stat increases having completely different values depending on other rules and stats. For example, a WS increase on a dedicated shooting unit is pretty much worthless, but going from WS 4 to WS 5 (assuming marines stay WS 4 as standard) on a dedicated melee unit can make a big difference. There's no way that a single standard point cost for increasing WS can handle both of those situations, which means that all you're doing is spending a lot of extra work adding up point costs without really getting any better information than just guessing at what seems appropriate. Either way you'll have to do cycles of adjusting point costs and playtesting them before you can get any useful conclusions, so you might as well just start the playtesting cycle with a quick guess and save yourself a lot of work.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
An increase from WS3 to WS4 is worth more than an increase from 7 to 8. Similarly, an increase in T is much more valuable than an increase in I.

Just as an example of why I think this is a bad idea:

"Brick-class" Terminator

WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.6.1.10.1..1.....2+..Infantry, Fearless, Eternal Warrior

+5 points for +5 T.

+6 points for 2+ armour.

+9 points for Wounds

+2 points for Fearless

+1 Point (TROLOLOLOL) for Eternal Warrior

23 points for a T6 W10 2+ armour model with Fearless. Sure, it's not killing anything, but you're never ever killing it in return, either. Actually, make it 25 and add in Smash. Place that on an objective and proceed to guffaw at your enemy as he can't ever remove your Troops from it.

In fact, we could make it a Jetbike and still have it be 2 PPM cheaper than a Tactical Marine.

Swap Smash for +1 Point "It Will Not Die!" and +1 point "Feel No Pain". Now it's not going anywhere.

Chrysis wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
An increase from WS3 to WS4 is worth more than an increase from 7 to 8. Similarly, an increase in T is much more valuable than an increase in I.

Just as an example of why I think this is a bad idea:

"Brick-class" Terminator

WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...2.6.1.10.1..1.....2+..Infantry, Fearless, Eternal Warrior

+5 points for +5 T.

+6 points for 2+ armour.

+9 points for Wounds

+2 points for Fearless

+1 Point (TROLOLOLOL) for Eternal Warrior

23 points for a T6 W10 2+ armour model with Fearless. Sure, it's not killing anything, but you're never ever killing it in return, either. Actually, make it 25 and add in Smash. Place that on an objective and proceed to guffaw at your enemy as he can't ever remove your Troops from it.

In fact, we could make it a Jetbike and still have it be 2 PPM cheaper than a Tactical Marine.

Swap Smash for +1 Point "It Will Not Die!" and +1 point "Feel No Pain". Now it's not going anywhere.

So we had a decent rule set up and all you can think about is how to break it as fast as possible? I would say exponentially increase costs of certain things like wounds. Such as 1-2 costs 2 points and 2-3 costs 3 points. The special rules would take the longest as you would have to appropriately price things or people like the above would take advantage of it. If you increase eternal warrior to 15 points and do the increasing costs for wounds and increasing toughness after T3 and I would say at least 3 points per point of armor save then that terminator now costs 90+ points. Sure he's pretty immobile but has no weapon at all so you can pretty much ignore it. on top of that if people can kill 9 HP titans they can kill a 10 wound marine. I would also add that eternal warrior be restricted to characters only and only if its within reason. I can't think of a single space marine that has eternal warrior.

So we had a decent rule set up and all you can think about is how to break it as fast as possible?

No, its not a decent rule setup until it can stop these shenanigans.

 Peregrine wrote:
You're never going to get more than a rough approximation of a unit's "fair" cost with this kind of system, which makes it pointless.

More or less pointless than GW's current method of using a "gut feeling" to points cost things? Even if this is only in a range that isn't perfect (well for now at least), isn't it a hell of a lot better?

 Peregrine wrote:
Even ignoring deliberate attempts to min/max a unit that breaks your system (which is easily done) you still have the huge problem of rules and stat increases having completely different values depending on other rules and stats.

1) It wasn't made to try and make characters with, it was something I spent a little time working on to try and re-evaluate basically everything in the game with to try and re-balance the game. Would that mean that eventually it'd be used for new things, sure, but I hadn't gotten that far with this yet.
2) I know it's not perfect. I've said so at least three times now. It's the week before finals, I'll give this thing another look and a better refinement when it's all over and I actually have time for it.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, a WS increase on a dedicated shooting unit is pretty much worthless, but going from WS 4 to WS 5 (assuming marines stay WS 4 as standard) on a dedicated melee unit can make a big difference.

See, now we're creating arbitrary rules how things need be be approached which starts to break things down. By putting sliding scales all over the place the system becomes even more complex (something I was already getting knocked for in the first place). You're basically saying that we'd need a scale for melee units, a scale for shooting units, a scale for all rounders and then repeat for vehicles as well.

 Peregrine wrote:
There's no way that a single standard point cost for increasing WS can handle both of those situations, which means that all you're doing is spending a lot of extra work adding up point costs without really getting any better information than just guessing at what seems appropriate. Either way you'll have to do cycles of adjusting point costs and playtesting them before you can get any useful conclusions, so you might as well just start the playtesting cycle with a quick guess and save yourself a lot of work.

Never said it was perfect, and never said it was a completed product (though I feel like you seem to think I have). I spent around two hours actually working on this last month and hadn't really touched it since. I only dug it back out because someone in the rumors thread said a system like this would just make all the models "feel the same" so I put it up as an example of a rough idea of how it could work and then tossed it up here for good measure just to see what people think.

And from what I've gathered:
- People don't like it because any sort of system would be complex (despite the fact it's be for development not general play so of course it's going to be more complex than what we normally deal with)
- People want to abuse it (no surprise)
- People want to keep reminding me that it's not perfect, has flaws I've admitted to and keep admitting too.

So anyone have anything constructive to say or should I expect more shin kicking about how horrible the idea is, how it's a failure at everything and remind me that it needs a lot of work to be "functional"?

 Dakkamite wrote:

So we had a decent rule set up and all you can think about is how to break it as fast as possible?

No, its not a decent rule setup until it can stop these shenanigans.

Well it is the first step of playtesting. to break things to find the problems.

Its an interesting idea, and I like it, coming from hero RPGs that are almost always build points. there would be a lot of tweaking.

Infantry, in 40k everything is human or human equivalent for troops so maybe baseline stats :

Non-Vehicle Models
WS BS S T I W A Ld Sv Type
...2...2...3.3.1.1.1..5.....-..Infantry

Attribute increases could not be linear. like it could be +1 point up to 4, 2 points for 5 and 6 and 3points per attribute for each above 7.

Wound should be higher point cost, again its rare that infantry or even elites run with multi-wounds. 5 per?

Classifications and special rules should be grouped into tables. Like everything in List A is a 5 point upgrade (jetpack, jumppack, ), List B 10 points (bike, fearless) points etc.

Ultimately it depends how you want to model the profiles. if you can reasonable model the disposable horde of orks and IG grunts or the "eliteness" of space marines, i think it would be a good time.

You may need to institute build caps as well, like "models classed infantry may not exceed 4 wounds" just to limit min/maxing.

Characteristic's point cost is not equal by no means.

Creature type is not a static pointcost increase, for example, monstrous creature with 6 wounds should cost somewhere around twice as more as monstrous creatures with 3 wounds with exact same stats otherwise. This extra wounds are a difference between 'get shot to death before doing something' and 'loose a couple of wounds but still do the job and be fully effective still'.

And am i right, carnifex costs like 1.5 space marines in your model?

 ClockworkZion wrote:
More or less pointless than GW's current method of using a "gut feeling" to points cost things? Even if this is only in a range that isn't perfect (well for now at least), isn't it a hell of a lot better?

No, because the missing element here is playtesting. Good game designers don't just follow a formula or make a guess at a point cost and then publish the rules, they playtest it, adjust the rules and/or point costs a bit, playtest it again, and repeat the cycle until the final result is balanced and ready to be published. Your formula doesn't really add anything to this process because you still have to do the same playtesting cycles, and all you're really doing is adding some formal rules to make your initial guess.

GW's problem isn't that they guess at initial point costs, it's that they (apparently) skip the entire playtesting cycle and just publish whatever first draft they come up with.

2) I know it's not perfect. I've said so at least three times now. It's the week before finals, I'll give this thing another look and a better refinement when it's all over and I actually have time for it.

You're not going to fix it with more effort because the concept is fundamentally broken. You can't come up with a fixed point cost for rules and stat increases because increasing stat X by +Y doesn't always have the same value.

See, now we're creating arbitrary rules how things need be be approached which starts to break things down. By putting sliding scales all over the place the system becomes even more complex (something I was already getting knocked for in the first place). You're basically saying that we'd need a scale for melee units, a scale for shooting units, a scale for all rounders and then repeat for vehicles as well.

The problem is that these categories of units don't exist. There's nothing inherent in the rules that defines a "shooting unit", it's just a role that you as a designer or player come up with. So what you're going to end up with is a system that says "follow this complex formula to generate a point cost X, then add or subtract Y depending on how you think it should be adjusted". And that's no better than just making your best guess at the point cost without all the complex rules.

- People don't like it because any sort of system would be complex (despite the fact it's be for development not general play so of course it's going to be more complex than what we normally deal with)

No, we don't like it because it's unnecessary complexity. If you aren't generating better results than just guessing at the appropriate point cost then all you're doing is adding a bunch of complexity with no purpose besides allowing yourself to pretend that your guesses are somehow objective truth. Complexity in the development cycle is fine, but only when it adds something important to the process.

- People want to abuse it (no surprise)

Well yeah, welcome to game design. If you publish rules then people will abuse them. If your rules only function when nobody abuses them then they aren't good rules.

So anyone have anything constructive to say or should I expect more shin kicking about how horrible the idea is, how it's a failure at everything and remind me that it needs a lot of work to be "functional"?

Sorry, but what you got is constructive criticism. Nobody is saying "this sucks, you're an idiot", telling you "this is bad and here's why" isn't non-constructive just because it's not praise.

It's not so much a problem with the idea so much as the execution. As currently presented it assumes that a point of BS is worth as much as a point of Initiative, or that Fear! is worth as much as Feel No Pain. And it doesn't even begin to address that the problem is often not so much the individual rules but the combinations of them. Skyfire is good, but not amazing by itself. Couple it with Interceptor and now you can fire at anything at all without penalty. It Will Not Die! is worthless on a 1 wound model, better on a 10 wound model and amazing on a 10 wound model with 2+ armour and Feel no Pain.

Chrysis wrote:
As currently presented it assumes that a point of BS is worth as much as a point of Initiative

And beyond that it assumes that a point of BS is worth as much as a point of BS, and that a point of initiative is worth as much as a point of initiative. For example, going from BS 4 to BS 5 is a pretty significant upgrade, but going from BS 5 to BS 6 adds almost nothing. Similarly, any increase in BS on a melee-focused model is worth much less than the same increase in BS on a shooting-focused model. And it's the same with initiative: in a game where the most common initiative value is 4 going from I1 to I3 is worth very little, going from I3 to I4 is the basic step in making a competent melee unit, going from I4 to I5 makes a huge difference, and going from I5 to I6 rarely matters. Any system that attempts to assign a single fixed price to a stat increase or special rule is just fundamentally broken.

Yup. You can either have simple and laughably broken or hideously complex but reasonably balanced.

For funsies:

Thingvaporator Lightning Gun:

Ranged Weapon profile: 0 points.
+66" range +11 points
+AP2 +5 points
+Heavy 10 +9 points
+Haywire, Fleshbane, Interceptor, Twin-Linked, Ignores Cover, Instant Death +6 points

Total: 31 points.

Add Relentless to our Brick-class terminators from earlier and now we've got a 57 point brick that can reach out and murder anything it wants.

The problem with any flat-price-for-stat-increase system is that it ignores the inherent problem of stats getting more valuable when coupled with other stats. Increasing from T4 to T5 on a one-Wound model isn't worth as much as increasing from T4 to T5 on a five-Wound model, for instance.

This is probably the reason GW go with their gut. So much easier than trying to figure out a balanced method. I respect the attempt and think it's a healthy starting point though.

Has anyone ever tried to reverse engineer, if that term fits even, the costings of 40K units? It would be fascinating to me to see if there is any common ground between them all or if it is just a case of "they can fit more models in if we drop the cost by another point next codex!"

IF you want accurate as possible costing based on stat lines.You HAVE to cover ALL the interaction with the stat lines.(And limit 'special rules' mainly to modifiers or re rolls.)

This means the current 40k rules are not suitable for this type of costing.

Add into this the massive amount of synergistic bonuses found in 40k unit composition , and it is pretty much a non starter.

The best way to assign points in 40k, is to use direct comparison of in game performance unit to unit.(As this is the level of interaction of 40k.)

This needs thorough play testing, to find the relative effectiveness from unit to unit.(10,000s of games over years to refine the system.)

However, as the people in charge of game development at GW ,(GW sales department.)Are not interested in game balance, just inspiring sales of the latest releases.
We end up with the 'rushed' product we currently have.

The formula is literally NOT going to work as just a simple set of additions.

Being a multi-wound model should multiply the costs of your other stats and abilities.

For example, Dante of the Blood Angels, near as I can figure from your post, would cost a mere 65ish points. Mephiston would be similarly priced. Near as I can tell, a Land Raider Crusader would be a mere 85 points, after figuring in the cost of all its guns. That's less than the price of 3 tactical marines under the same system.

Also, it seems that unwieldy is not mentioned in the melee section as a drawback. Psychic powers are also in the wind.

As it stands, this system in its current pre-pre-pre-alpha state places extraordinary favor upon multi-wound characters, high armor vehicles, and the like. Meanwhile the troops would be a giant point-sink of suckitude. Ork shoota boyz would be 20 points per boy!

So yes, any system that wants to seriously attempt to standardize 40k point costs absolutely HAS to account for "sweet spots" in a stat progression that affect the game more than others, such as WS5, 2+ armor, or T6, as well as dull spots such as changing from 6+ to 5+ armor, or going from virtually any WS to any other WS that isn't 5.

This in addition to the fact that some stats are just flat out more important than others, or may be more or less relevant depending on other synergistic abilities. Death Company relentless, for example, isn't all that useful since they can't select heavy weapon loadouts. It's much better on say, chaos obliterators. Hit and run is a long shot on Tau crisis suits, but quite lovely on higher initiative units. Even better on units that are durable AND have high initiative. Ork guns are quite good for their point cost (twin linked s8 ap3 shot for 10 points, for one!), and are generally offset by the user having terrible BS.

So, all in all, pretty much every ability and weapon would have to be costed appropriately for what OTHER abilities and statistics are going on the model, with every bit of synergy upping the cost.

In other words, you'd need to write a bunch of separate codices detailing point costs for each army...kinda like what we have.

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to chime in here and shoot this down as well. *Puts engineer hat on*

The problem is, you want to treat this as a linear system, where all these different variables (WS, S, T, armor save, weapon range, the binary status of different USR's, etc) are independent and can be priced independently. Even if you concede that for example, an increase in WS does not scale linearly (WS3 to WS4 is worth more than WS7 to WS8) you still have to address the fact that the point cost of each stat or USR is highly coupled to the value of many other stats. The point cost of unit stats, weapon stats, etc, are not independent of one another. They're highly non-linear.

This is what I mean by nonlinearity - the point cost for a unit with two different stats, x and y, isn't A*x + B*y, it's actually A*x + B*y + C*x*y, extended out to dozens of different stats. Then add all kinds of Boolean logic for evaluating unit type, USRs and the like (endless if/then statements to account for the change in value of different things depending on which special rules a unit gets).

To make matters worse, the point cost isn't even confined to the one unit you're trying to evaluate - it's also tied to the other units in an army, and to the other armies in the game (for example, a 4+ save is effectively less useful, and less valuable, if AP4 weapons are extremely common in the game as a whole).

The complexity of the 40k system is probably beyond any of our abilities to devise a formula for unit point costs for anything beyond a very rough "first guess", to be evaluated later through playtesting. It's not just a matter of tweaking the costs you're giving everything - your whole approach is wrong unless you can account for the extremely high nonlinearity of the game system.

Side note, this is why it's maddening to see GW do things like apply a flat +25 points for power fists whether you're a chapter master or an IG lieutenant - those two units are clearly not getting the same effectiveness out of those 25 points, but GW's designers don't seem to really care.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but what you got is constructive criticism. Nobody is saying "this sucks, you're an idiot", telling you "this is bad and here's why" isn't non-constructive just because it's not praise.

No, constructive criticism would be "this is bad, here's how I'd fix it" or "this isn't any good, have you thought of this". What I was getting was "this sucks, this sucks, oh god this sucks" largely instead.

EDIT:
I can understand where a lot of people are coming from, but I still don't feel the concept of the idea is wrong. Sure my initial execution sucks (which I admit freely) but the concept of using a standard to points cost things would drop things like 1 point differences between Sisters to CSM or CSM to Loyalist Space Marines. We all know there are issues with the current way of costing things, or else we wouldn't be complaining about X being undercosted or Y being overcosted with how GW does things.

I think one of the things that'd probably help is making the stat costs increase exponentially (with wounds starting at 5) so that your first point of WS may only cost 1, but the second is 2, third is 3, fourth is 4, fifth is 5, and so on. This means the farther you go, the more the stat increases cost (as to get from WS 2 to 5 you'd pay 1 to go to 3, another 2 to go to 4 and 3 to go to 5 for a total of 6 points versus 3 points to get to 4).

And yes, pretty much every single Special Rule needs to be evaluated and given a points cost. I think it's safe to put "It Will Not Die" and Eternal Warrior at 15 points + the cost of the models toughness and wounds though to start with.

EDIT...Again: Wounds would go 5 for the first extra wound, 10 for the second, 15 for the third, 20 for the fourth, 30 for the third, ect in how much each wound costs.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Sorry, but what you got is constructive criticism. Nobody is saying "this sucks, you're an idiot", telling you "this is bad and here's why" isn't non-constructive just because it's not praise.

No, constructive criticism would be "this is bad, here's how I'd fix it" or "this isn't any good, have you thought of this". What I'm getting is "this sucks, this sucks, oh god this sucks" largely instead.

Sorry, I did try to give constructive criticism, but there isn't anything constructive to say. Your idea doesn't "suck", it's something I've thought of trying to do before. But I believe the idea of an all-encompassing points value formula is fundamentally flawed, and there isn't much you or anyone can do about it. I tried to explain why. Don't take it personally.