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.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Nope. The fire points have never really made an impact in cost as far as I can tell. Mainly because they vary so wildly in effectiveness based on the unit inside. If the vehicle is empty, why am I paying points for fire points?

Now I had considered that when I decided points for open topped, but with the ability to give the unit inside the option to assault from it or fire all their weapons from the relative safety of the transport, it should cost a little extra.

When modeling the vehicles, if you are basing it off of a current design, use the fire and access points the vehicle already has. It will help tie your creation into the rest of the armies menagerie.

That's kinda what I figured, but I figured I better ask to make sure. Have you considered making a second vehicle design chart using true values purely for those who wish to balance the current vehicles like say the often discussed wave serpent for instance. The goal obviously being to achieve better game balance not to build new stuff. New/custom stuff should have a higher points cost for the reasons you mentioned earlier.

I realize the numbers are only off by 5 -15 points and about 40 for super heavies, but getting a true total would make things a little more accurate.

Thanks for the quick reply btw.

On a side note I am working on a razorback variant with a twin-linked conversion beamer. I like conversion beamers a lot lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, after trying to recreate the space marine vehicles (vanilla marines) I have run into some issues. Some or all could be user error lol.

Firstly, I am having difficulties recreating the Cerberus Launcher, Conversion Beamer, Icarus Stormcannon Array, and the Skyspear Missile Launcher.

Second I am getting a lot of crazy values on the stock vehicles. Either I am doing something wrong, or GW has really screwy pricing. I am assuming your math and formula are right since it seems to work correctly on most everything (accounting for the intentional price increase)

Here are the values I have gotten and for what vehicles (stock loadouts no upgrades): Rhino 40, Razorback 54, Predator 70, Whirlwind 55, Dreadnought 110, Ironclad Dreadnought 172, Vindicator 95, Land Raider 254, Land Raider Crusader 237, Land Raider Redeemer 241, Land Speeder 60, Land Speeder Storm 70 (Cerberus Launcher not figured in), Storm Talon 146, Storm Raven 240, Stalker 40 (no gun), and Hunter (no gun).

Some fall within the the margin of error like the rhino, dreadnought, and land raider. Others come in at or about their current price. And some come in way over or way under their current cost.

If the formula is set up to to create slightly more expensive vehicles shouldn't they all fall into the 5 - 15 over category?

If that is so then either my calculations are wrong (ie I'm doing something wrong somewhere) or Space Marine vehicles are WAY out of whack.

Sorry if I am being a pain, but I thought it was better to bring it up and make sure everything is working correctly. If my calculations are wrong, then no worries. It will just mean I am an idiot, and need to go back to school and relearn my math lol. Unless of course, I am missing something obvious and being a bonehead.

I might go crazy with custom vehicles for the Skitarii. If anyone would have wildly different vehicles it would be the forces of the Adeptus Mechanicus.

@norsesig, the marine vehicles were a huge pain in the ass when I was trying to math everything out! After spending almost a month trying to get them all right, I realized that G.W. has so many marine based codecies that they HAVE to play test them more. So the marine vehicles got a lot more attention and price tweaking than anyone else. The Orks have a similar problem, but not nearly as noticeable.

To answer your question, you are doing the math right. Games workshop prices the marine stuff with a much broader stroke than anyone else.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
@norsesig, the marine vehicles were a huge pain in the ass when I was trying to math everything out! After spending almost a month trying to get them all right, I realized that G.W. has so many marine based codecies that they HAVE to play test them more. So the marine vehicles got a lot more attention and price tweaking than anyone else. The Orks have a similar problem, but not nearly as noticeable.

To answer your question, you are doing the math right. Games workshop prices the marine stuff with a much broader stroke than anyone else.

I am tempted to try playing a few games using your values for vehicles (and account for price increase on the pricier ones). Just to see if it makes them too good, or possibly too poor. I have a feeling that the flyers will be too expensive even though they conform with the formula. I had to guesstimate the Stormraven due to the extra dreadnought transport capacity. Purely as a transport the stormraven might be alright at 225 - 240 points.

Stll kinda stumped on the cerberus launcher, conversion beamer, icarus stormcannon array, and skyspear missile launcher. Their profiles are so unique they are hard to duplicate. The Hyperios Air Defense Missile Laucher I can just use a missile launcher and add on the 3 abilities (Interceptor, Skyfire, and Heat Seeker).

Now that I know that it isn't me I'll start pricing the Forgeworld stuff as best as I can. I want to see if they are a little better at pricing or if their builds just produce better results. I think Forgeworld tends to do better than GW when it comes to designing vehicles lol.

Using your rules I came up with the AT AT from Star Wars. I think I got the price right, but I dont know.
Superheavy Tank:
Av 14 all around: 100
12HP in total = +300)
400 points base.
(Lascannon base cost bs4: 25+ supercharged100% + overpenetration 10% + primary weapon50%+ + twin link50%+ long barrel 50% rapid reload 100%)

+372 points

2 x multi laser 15 + twinlinked50%
46
Ceramite plating +30
Enclosed+ 0
Transport capacity 25 + assault vehicle =+50

Total =984 points.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Using your rules I came up with the AT AT from Star Wars. I think I got the price right, but I dont know.
Superheavy Tank:
Av 14 all around: 100
12HP in total = +300)
400 points base.
(Lascannon base cost bs4: 25+ supercharged100% + overpenetration 10% + primary weapon50%+ + twin link50%+ long barrel 50% rapid reload 100%)

+372 points

2 x multi laser 15 + twinlinked50%
46
Ceramite plating +30
Enclosed+ 0
Transport capacity 25 + assault vehicle =+50

Total =984 points.

I can't check right now, but it would be interesting to see this get the stomp rule instead of blitz. Kind of the opposite of the lord of skulls for chaos. Awesome idea BTW!

Maybe something like this: Instead of having the blitz rule the AT AT Superheavy tank may make D3 stomp attacks at initiative 2 as described in the super heavy walker rules when in assault with a unit. However, neither the unit nor the AT AT are locked in combat the following turn and the AT AT may not charge enemy enemy unit during the assault phase.

Are we talking Action Figure scaled AT-AT or Miniatures Scale AT-AT ? 12 Hull Points seems a bit much for the miniatures scaled one.

Also, how does one rapidly disembark and charge from an AT-AT ? Assault vehicle seems out of character for such a model.

Well it is like 13" tall and pretty long too so I think size wise it does merit 12hp.
You make a good point about it not being an assault vehicle really. Not that stormtroopers would likely be assaulting out of anyways( which is what it would carry, guess I got come up with what their stats would be too now. Sigh) Oh, and I wrote the cost 984 points on accident. It's supposed to be 894.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(it merits 12hp in universe wise too)

Just use the stats for stormtroopers to represent the 501st, done!

So I went ahead and made the ATST to go with its big brother:
Fast Attack slot.
May be taken in squadrons with a 1-3 limit.
ATST: Medium light vehicle
Av12 all around:
40 base cost
Enclosed +5 points
fast speed +15
Scout + 20
Move Through Cover+10
(Lascannon base cost bs3 20 + twinlinked50%) = 30

120 points

May purchase a pintle mounted heavy multilaser for 20 points ( multilaser bs3 + supercharged) OR a pintle mounted twinlinked missile launcher with all missile variants for 45( missile launcher bs3 30+ twin-linked50%)

The atst's should definitely be walkers...

A walker in the star wars sense yes, but its not 40k walker material.
The very idea of an atst charging a space marine in hand to hand combat is actually kinda funny

It's not like it could use it's giant legs to stomp on them...

Agreed, it would be better at it than a warhammer, simply due to size!

Ok well since you take normal speed for walkers and its 5 points more expensive to have av12 walker then it equals out back to 120 points. But now it has s6 a1 i3 and the walker special rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sorry S4 not S6

This link is the Star Wars fan Codex I made:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/641831.page#7704815

Wanted to give credit where it was due. Made all of the vehicles from your VDR:

You're welcome my friend, and well done!

So, my buddy made an armorbane punisher cannon, and I'm thinking that the price on that upgrade should be based on shots fired, instead of a base percentage.

What do you guys think?

Edit: autocorrect

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, my buddy made an armorbane punisher cannon, and I'm thinking that the price on that upgrade should be based on shots fired, instead of a base percentage.

What do you guys think?

Edit: autocorrect

That may or may not work better. A lot depends on the weapon that is getting more shots. Certain weapons with more shots are scarier than others. As long as the points total is fair I think a per shot cost might be better since it would make it easier to reconstruct weapons with strange profiles.

On a side note if someone could help me reconstruct the conversion beamer, and the weapons on the hunter and stalker it would be appreciated. I think I am missing something somewhere...

With one off weapons, just make the calculations for the base vehicle, then subtract those points from the normal vehicle cost. Add about 5 points to that and you should be cool.

The cost I am thinking about is shots fired times strength. Then you would add that to the weapons base cost. So the armorbane punisher cannon would total out to 130 points. That sounds reasonable for the bane of all medium armor, as long as it's within 2 feet anyway.

Got bored the other day, so I reworked the Dark Angels' Land Speeder Vengeance (mainly the plasma storm battery) to be, you know, worth bringing while keeping the same point cost.

The new speeder costs 142 points total. The only thing I really changed was the plasma storm battery, which is now an executioner plasma cannon with the blind, cooling system, and pinning upgrades with the speed loader addition. I also added Power of the Machine Spirit so it can jink and still shoot its plasma storm battery (seeing that it's an AV 10, 2 HP vehicle, I'd be jinking a lot), but I would honestly be fine with dropping PotMS and calling it an even 140 points for simplicity's sake.

On another note, any idea on what the point costs for independent targeting on weapons would be, like on the fire raptor's turrets or the necron gauss flayer arrays?

Honestly, I'd give it away for free, but go ahead and add 5 points to it. You're still under the maximum number of guns fired, but get to spread the fire around. Potms is good, but honestly the only reason I assigned points to it at all was the ability to fire an extra gun on the move. Had nothing to do with the ability to shoot another target.

The weapons killing potential doesn't change.

I hadn't even thought of firing at different targets when I added PotMS. The thought that jumped into my head when I made that was paying 140 points for a speeder that has to jink bolter fire, although the 36" range should help you stay in cover more often than you could with the old one. Thanks for the reply.

"I had to jink, so I'll just fire the burst mode. ... "

In the next update, armorbane will be costed at str of the weapon times number of shots, and POTMS will become split fire for walkers. I realized with the former, you could full ballistic skill overwatch, and that is nonsense!

Any other suggestions for improvements/ modifications?

Page 2. Under flyer "flyers may carry at least 4 weapons" should probably read "up to"

Page 9. Under Forces of Chaos there is no option for the 4 Marks of Chaos (Khorne, Nurgle, Slaanesh, Tzeentch)
Should be restricted to only models with Daemon trait

Page 13. Under Necrons, there is no option for Scarab Hive (I'd set it at 50pts, and restrict it to heavy choices)

Page 13. Under Necrons, there is no option for Nebuloscope (Ignore Cover) I know this effect is covered in the weapons section, but I would point that out in the Necron Section "Nebuloscope: See Ignore Cover in Weapons Upgrade Section)

*edited for spelling

There are a lot of flyers with more than that, and several small and medium flyers with more than their allotment.

The nebuloscope only exists on the jetbike, iirc. So I didn't add that option to their vehicles. Making an entire vehicle ignore cover(especially with Necron level firepower) is pretty ridiculous. I forget, what vehicle has scarab hive?

I'd have to look at the marks, don't remember vehicles being able to take them. The daemon of rules would automatically have to go on daemons.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There are a lot of flyers with more than that, and several small and medium flyers with more than their allotment.

Necron Flyers have 1. I assumed it was a typo. There probably shouldn't be a minimum number of weapons.

The nebuloscope only exists on the jetbike, iirc. So I didn't add that option to their vehicles. Making an entire vehicle ignore cover(especially with Necron level firepower) is pretty ridiculous

I agree. What I was saying that since the nebuloscope is a named peice of Necron wargear, people might look for it.
My suggestion was to add a note that the nebulocope can be achieved by adding ignores cover it to the weapon itself.

I forget, what vehicle has scarab hive?

The Necron Tomb Citadel, from Forgeworld, and the Canoptek Sypder Monstrous Creature. I just thought it would be a great option to add to a vehicle. If something the size of a Canoptek Spyder can manage it, a larger vehicle could as well.

I'd have to look at the marks, don't remember vehicles being able to take them. The daemon of rules would automatically have to go on daemons.

The walkers can take marks. I know, off the top of my head, that the Soulgrinder has to take a mark.

I see what you're saying now. I was trying to convey that a flyer can have more than the weapons allowed by its size, with 4 being a standard. I'll look at the current flyers again and see if there is a ratio pertaining to their hull points and the weapons available. Also, the doom scythe has two guns.

The scarab hive could be an option to add, just not sure how to cost it. The spiders start with it, and the tomb has so many special rules that it is really hard to figure out how much they spent on it. We can give it a go though!

The soul grinder has to be a "daemon of..." That isn't a mark. In order to get that rule, you have to be a daemon. That's why I didn't add that stipulation. Are the walkers from the chaos spacemarine codex allowed to get the "mark of..." rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Maybe cost the scarab hive at 15 points. It can injure the vehicle, has a limited range, and can only create scarabs if there are scarabs nearby anyway. I don't own that book, if you activate that ability during your movement phase, then I wouldn't allow the vehicle to move more than combat speed before or after it spawns. The main limitation for the two units that already have it is they cannot match the scarab's speed. Any vehicle can (without that limitation)

What do you think?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The soul grinder has to be a "daemon of..." That isn't a mark. In order to get that rule, you have to be a daemon. That's why I didn't add that stipulation. Are the walkers from the chaos spacemarine codex allowed to get the "mark of..." rules?

No, but the Decimator can.