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.

Well, here goes nuttin'...

Race: Humans (Free Smoke Launchers and Spotlights)
Type: Tank
Class: Super Heavy

Armour Value: 14/13/12 [90 pts]

Weapons:
-Baneblade Cannon [160 pts]
-Autocannon [15 pts]
-Demolisher Cannon [40 pts]
-3x Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter [45 pts]
-2x Lascannon [40 pts]

Hull Points: 9 [200 points]

Total Cost: 576 points

So... Baneblades cost around 576 points with this ruleset. Right then. One point more than Escalation.

*sigh*

You don't add the attack after the plus sign. Congratulations on your new wraithlord

I am going to be reworking the baneblade cannon variants. I hadn't seen people complaining about them being overpowered, but did see people disliking how they compared to newer superheavy units and figured it was mostly the new units being out of whack. I will be addressing this over the weekend (hopefully)

Yay! I look forward to criticizing it.

 Selym wrote:
Yay! I look forward to criticizing it.

Do what you gotta do, can't make it work if I don't have people pointing out the flaws. I will also be adding a minimum point value to the different size categories of vehicles to ensure there aren't any free or negative point value options. They used to be so out of whack that you could make a railguns toting av9 platform for about 9 points

Lets get silly with this VDR, shall we?

Tech Adept Doritosius Chipsicus felt great disdain at the Baneblade variants of the Imperium. So he modified one.

Race: Humans (Free Smoke Launchers and Spotlights)
Type: Tank
Class: Super Heavy

Armour Value: 14/14/14 [115 pts]

Weapons:
-4x Eradicator Nova Cannon (as sponsons) [80 pts]
-8x Vanquisher Battle Cannon (mounted as a turret, sorta like a minigun) [120 pts]
-1x Eradicator Nova Cannon (hull mounted) [20 pts]
-1x Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter (hull mounted) [15 pts]

Hull Points: 9 [200 pts]

Specials:
-Energy shield (4++) [30 pts] (What. This statistically makes the vehicle worth 18 Hull Points, which should have added a whopping 300 points to it.)

Total: 580 points.

So. Cheaper than a Hellhammer with one pair of sponsons by 10 points, will outshoot it at any/every instance, has far more Av, and has statistically double the durability (excluding Av changes).
At least this is what Baneblades should look like.

 Selym wrote:
Lets get silly with this VDR, shall we?

Tech Adept Doritosius Chipsicus felt great disdain at the Baneblade variants of the Imperium. So he modified one.

Race: Humans (Free Smoke Launchers and Spotlights)
Type: Tank
Class: Super Heavy

Armour Value: 14/14/14 [115 pts]

Weapons:
-4x Eradicator Nova Cannon (as sponsons) [80 pts]
-8x Vanquisher Battle Cannon (mounted as a turret, sorta like a minigun) [120 pts]
-1x Eradicator Nova Cannon (hull mounted) [20 pts]
-1x Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter (hull mounted) [15 pts]

Hull Points: 9 [200 pts]

Specials:
-Energy shield (4++) [30 pts] (What. This statistically makes the vehicle worth 18 Hull Points, which should have added a whopping 300 points to it.)

Total: 580 points.

So. Cheaper than a Hellhammer with one pair of sponsons by 10 points, will outshoot it at any/every instance, has far more Av, and has statistically double the durability (excluding Av changes).
At least this is what Baneblades should look like.

Trying to figure if this would be broken or not. It honestly looks like it has just enough shoootiness to be viable.

Also what's the ballistics skill on it? 3?

Yep.

Ok, so point changes I have come up with

Baneblade cannon: 130
Magma cannon: 125
Tremor cannon: 80
Vanquisher cannon: 25

That would make the above vehicle 660 points. Still working out the other leman Russ guns... Forgot the damn codex at home :/

Why only drop the Baneblade cannon to 130?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For reference, this is the Baneblade from back when it was considered "a tad overpriced, but not too bad":

Imperial Armour 1, Second Edition

Baneblade:
Cost: 500 pts
Armour: 14/13/12
HP: 9
Weapons:
-Baneblade Cannon with Co-Axial Autocannon (turret)
-Demolisher Cannon (hull)
-Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter (hull)
-2x Lascannon (sponson)
-2x Twin-Linked Heavy Bolter (sponson)



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I make that 70 points for the Baneblade Cannon.

I don't know, that would make the baneblade cannon cheaper than the knight errant's melta cannon...

Range 36" s9 ap1 melta large blast

Can't be higher than

Range72" s9 ap2 primary weapon one apocalyptic blast

Outside of 18" it is better than the cannon against vehicles, they have the same wound probability and armor negation against toughness based enemies, but the baneblade cannon has double the range and its shot covers over double the area. I don't think the baneblade cannon being 1.75 the point value of the knights melta cannon is unreasonable...

Yes, it can. At Bs 3 the thing is unreliable, and has a terrible rate of tank kills. Against troops, its still not effective. The melta cannon is readily able to one-shot a vehicle. And look at the effects of games, rather than the direct numbers. Even at 500 points /with/ sponsons, the Baneblade was mediocre.

I was comparing it to the bs3 version of the melta cannon. In order to miss an infantry sized model with a ten inch blast at bs3 you would NEED to roll a 9 or higher on 2d6 and that is if you don't happen to roll the 1/3 chance to get it exactly where you want it from the scatter die. What reasonable person can look at the two statlines above and say the shorter ranged one that covers about 25% of the area should be the more expensive option?

Against any av above ten the baneblade cannon has a higher percentage chance to pen any vehicle until the melta cannon gets within 18". That means for four feet and six inches the baneblade cannon actually has the same or better chance to explode a vehicle. It can hit entire squadrons of vehicles reliably because they are limited to a 4" spacing of them, meaning that all of the cool new units of tanks that marines and eldar got are actually MORE susceptible to the baneblade cannon than they were originally.

The baneblade isn't mediocre for 505 points, luck shots with strength D are the only issue it really has. And I have said many time how I feel about that particular weapon option.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was comparing it to the bs3 version of the melta cannon. In order to miss an infantry sized model with a ten inch blast at bs3 you would NEED to roll a 9 or higher on 2d6 and that is if you don't happen to roll the 1/3 chance to get it exactly where you want it from the scatter die. What reasonable person can look at the two statlines above and say the shorter ranged one that covers about 25% of the area should be the more expensive option?

Against any av above ten the baneblade cannon has a higher percentage chance to pen any vehicle until the melta cannon gets within 18". That means for four feet and six inches the baneblade cannon actually has the same or better chance to explode a vehicle. It can hit entire squadrons of vehicles reliably because they are limited to a 4" spacing of them, meaning that all of the cool new units of tanks that marines and eldar got are actually MORE susceptible to the baneblade cannon than they were originally.

The baneblade isn't mediocre for 505 points, luck shots with strength D are the only issue it really has. And I have said many time how I feel about that particular weapon option.

Yet more evidence that you've never seen a Baneblade on the TT. The Melta Cannon probably should be cheaper. One of the major problems with IK is how hard they are to kill without D weapons. Maybe you're undervaluing their armour.

The points allocated to armor and toughness/save scale together and appear to follow a glide path of damage reduction that I am happy with for every vehicle and monstrous creature in the game. I believe you are undervaluing the baneblade by a huge margin.

Compared to where a wraithknight should be (395) and especially if you take my proposition for strD into account, the baneblade will have a much more dramatic effect on the entire game.

But we're not. If we're playing "houserule 40k" we should be remaking the units from the ground up, but we're not. We're using the rues of 7E.

And come back when you've actually tested the units you're theoryhammering on.

How many games have you had with your baneblade that didn't involve strength D at all?

How am I going to make this system work at all if all I am going to run into is people wanting g me to make everything as overpowered as the wraithknight and ta'unar? If I priced everything according to those units, then everything made with this system will be so powerful nobody will want to play against it.

There are discrepancies in what games workshop does compared to my system, I need people to help me spot them, but I will not intentionally create a system to perpetuate the unbalance shown by a limited few models.

I haven't played any games with Strength D in them. We're not trying to make them as OP as the WK, but the WK till has to be considered. If you actually read the arguments and the justifications for them, instead of rejecting them and replacing them with a suggestion that doesn't make any sense, you're not realy going to get anywhere.

The discrepancies between GW and your system total 1:

-It's possible to make negative value units.

And if everything were made to the value of a WK, the game would balance itself out, due to all units being on the same power level.

Right, so, as the other thread discussing this has been locked, I guess it's time to port the arguments over to here, if anyone is interested:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/665756.page

TL;DR:

-Double range is not worth double points
-Saves should scale with durability, not be a static cost
-Baneblades are underpowered
-Lyth has never used the units he is theoryhammering on
-It is not fair for a Guardsman to pay 15 ppm for a power weapon, when SM and SM Captains pay the same amount, and VV pay only 10 ppm.

Not to alarm you further Selym but VVs actually pay 5 points per Power Weapon or Lightning Claw. You might be thinking of 10 points for giving them two.
In addition they pay 15 points for a Power Fist, 20 for a Thunder Hammer and 10 for a Storm Shield.

Ah ffs.

And Lyth still thinks that GW uses a VDR...

 Selym wrote:
Right, so, as the other thread discussing this has been locked, I guess it's time to port the arguments over to here, if anyone is interested:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/270/665756.page

TL;DR:

-Double range is not worth double points
-Saves should scale with durability, not be a static cost
-Baneblades are underpowered
-Lyth has never used the units he is theoryhammering on
-It is not fair for a Guardsman to pay 15 ppm for a power weapon, when SM and SM Captains pay the same amount, and VV pay only 10 ppm.

-it is when the distance being considered is so vast most units in the game couldn't traverse the distance in a single game. This isn't comparing 12" to 24", this is 5' to 10'

-The only save that doesn't is an invul save. If something is super durable to begin with, the invul means less and less. A 5+ invul means less on a toughness 6 3+ save creature than it does for a toughness 8 - with the same wounds. How would you suggest scaling that? When on the tabletop, if I'm going to create an algorithm for adjustable invul saves, how will they account for the enemies choice of weapons and terrain coverage?

-The baneblade is only slightly overpriced. I has a good weapons loadout that for some reason you believe to be worth than weapons with less than half of its range and cover less area. Your baneblade has been underwhelming, and that can be frustrating, but how many points do you take off before it outclasses every imperial knight in the game? It spends 120 points on durability that the imperial knight doesn't, if you lowered those then it would be sitting at the same 385 points as the paladin. How could you say that the double battle cannon, two heavy stubber, the ion shield, and a strD chainsword are significanty better than the baneblade cannon, autocannon, demolisher cannon, and twin linked heavy bolter?

I am sorry your games with the baneblade haven't worked out for you, but thirty points can go a long way in an astra militarum army. Also, I have played with some of them, I've seen how infuriating it was when my brother in law's baneblade fired everything it had (including the double sponsons) at my buddy's railgun hammerhead and the jerk went ahead and made every single jink save it was forced to use. They needed it brought down, it was the only thing that could threaten their deathstrike missiles on the far side of the table, dice get hot sometimes. That doesn't make the tank doing the shooting too weak.

-games workshop screws up point totals all the time, either by deciding after play testing that things should get a discount because of specialization (vangaurd vets, who can take a formation to get those weapons for free), they are trying to (apparently) really drive sales (ta'unar supremacy comes to mind), or they appear to have actually made a mistake (the wraithknight is off on points by almost the exact point difference between monstrous creature and gargantuan creature)

The thing is with statistics, you ignore anomalous outliers. If the average life expectancy is between 3-5 years for say a hamster, and one somehow miraculously survives for twenty, you can't use that one situation to skew the average because it would give a false impression. The same holds true with the vdr, I am pricing weapons in the system based on apparent effectiveness when compared to similar weapon systems in the game. I have seen outliers in the system, you showed me a couple yourself, I label them as such when I find them and place the point total GW has them at next to them to show why if you built the same vehicle with the rules it comes out to a different total. That is what I have done, that is what I will continue to do, it won't solve your apparent problem with using your baneblade.

I don't like bringing out the cyan, but here I go:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

-it is when the distance being considered is so vast most units in the game couldn't traverse the distance in a single game. This isn't comparing 12" to 24", this is 5' to 10'
The only time you see the max range of the units in question being used is an Apocalypse games, where multiple tables are covered in models from both sides. Being able to snipe a tiatn across the room is all well and good, but there will be about 2k points of enemy witin 30" of it on T1. You NEVER see games where a unit cannot be reached by the enemy.
-The only save that doesn't is an invul save. If something is super durable to begin with, the invul means less and less. A 5+ invul means less on a toughness 6 3+ save creature than it does for a toughness 8 - with the same wounds. How would you suggest scaling that? When on the tabletop, if I'm going to create an algorithm for adjustable invul saves, how will they account for the enemies choice of weapons and terrain coverage?
Which thing only does not have an Invuln save? And how do you not understand that the gains for invuln saves increase dramatically with the base durability of a unit? A guardsman model should not be paying 30 points for a 4++m and nethier should a 9 HP Av 14 super-heavy tank! It doubles their durability! THE GAINS ARE NOT THE SAME ACROSS ALL UNITS.
-The baneblade is only slightly overpriced. I has a good weapons loadout that for some reason you believe to be worth than weapons with less than half of its range and cover less area. Your baneblade has been underwhelming, and that can be frustrating, but how many points do you take off before it outclasses every imperial knight in the game? It spends 120 points on durability that the imperial knight doesn't, if you lowered those then it would be sitting at the same 385 points as the paladin. How could you say that the double battle cannon, two heavy stubber, the ion shield, and a strD chainsword are significanty better than the baneblade cannon, autocannon, demolisher cannon, and twin linked heavy bolter?
I am sorry your games with the baneblade haven't worked out for you, but thirty points can go a long way in an astra militarum army. Also, I have played with some of them, I've seen how infuriating it was when my brother in law's baneblade fired everything it had (including the double sponsons) at my buddy's railgun hammerhead and the jerk went ahead and made every single jink save it was forced to use. They needed it brought down, it was the only thing that could threaten their deathstrike missiles on the far side of the table, dice get hot sometimes. That doesn't make the tank doing the shooting too weak.
Oh don't patronize me, the three main people in the thread have all been saying the same thing: Baneblades are massively overestimated by both you and GW. And how can you even begin to conceive that a Str D melee weapon, and the Stomp power are balanced against most everything else? And you seem to have no concept of statistics if you think 30 points for a 50% damage reduction is fair on all units.
-games workshop screws up point totals all the time, either by deciding after play testing that things should get a discount because of specialization (vangaurd vets, who can take a formation to get those weapons for free), they are trying to (apparently) really drive sales (ta'unar supremacy comes to mind), or they appear to have actually made a mistake (the wraithknight is off on points by almost the exact point difference between monstrous creature and gargantuan creature)
Yes, GW screw up. That is one of our main points as to why you shouldn't be basing your system off of their work - base it off playtesting and community feedback.
The thing is with statistics, you ignore anomalous outliers. If the average life expectancy is between 3-5 years for say a hamster, and one somehow miraculously survives for twenty, you can't use that one situation to skew the average because it would give a false impression.
My arguments, and the arguments of Peregrine have been made with a good understanding of statistics. So far you have been unable to grasp that 50% drability boosts are different on different units. Our arguments on Baneblades have been worked from dozens of games we have witnessed, and the hundreds of games from other players on Dakka.
The same holds true with the vdr, I am pricing weapons in the system based on apparent effectiveness when compared to similar weapon systems in the game. I have seen outliers in the system, you showed me a couple yourself, I label them as such when I find them and place the point total GW has them at next to them to show why if you built the same vehicle with the rules it comes out to a different total. That is what I have done, that is what I will continue to do, it won't solve your apparent problem with using your baneblade.

Of course a 4++ means less on an infantry model, fortunately all we are talking about in the system are monstrous creatures and vehicles.

All daemon monsters besides the bloodthirster have invuls but no armor.

I can make the invul based on a points per wound scenario, but it will make certain units way overpriced compared to current stats (like the dreadknight, he is priced at 5 points too cheap currently, if I make him pay anything more than 4 points per wound his price will raise even more)

I based my original decision for static bonus to saves based on the 5++ being the same apparent cost on warwalker and vypers and the fact that eldar holofields are the same price no matter what vehicle you put them on. All the sisters of battle vehicles pay the same 5 points for their shield of faith. They have different armor values, but do have the same hullpoints.

I'll give your changes a go, but I still believe the holofields will stay where they are at. It isn't a save, it is limited to eldar superheavies (who are limited to being walkers or skimmers and aren't allowed to have an armor value above 12) and replaces the option for heavier armor and voidshields for imperial units. It is priced at the same level as 3 voidshields, and if you were to trade them directly the things that can glance or pen the voidshields to drop them can also hurt the revenant. Things like the warhound would have to be shot with those lesser weapons then larger ones are NEEDED to actually hurt it. Plasma guns can legitimately kill a revenant on its best facing, the same is impossible on the SIDE armor of the warhound.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Of course a 4++ means less on an infantry model, fortunately all we are talking about in the system are monstrous creatures and vehicles.
T'was an extreme example, but the principle holds true in the VDR. 2HP Av 10 vehicle =/= 9HP Av14 vehicle. On the latter, that's essentially a 300 point durability upgrade for 30 points.
All daemon monsters besides the bloodthirster have invuls but no armor.
Yes. And a T5 MC should be paying less for a 4++ than a T8 GMC.
I can make the invul based on a points per wound scenario, but it will make certain units way overpriced compared to current stats (like the dreadknight, he is priced at 5 points too cheap currently, if I make him pay anything more than 4 points per wound his price will raise even more)
Which is kinda the point. Step one should be to make a slightly overcosted unit via the VDR to get a ballpark figure, and then refine it based on gameplay. The same item means different things to different units. A 10 point turret mounted gun is worth notably more than a 10 point hull mounted gun with a 45* firing arc. A VDR is inherently incapable of making a balanced ruleset for a game as complicated and diverse as 40k, it's just a fact.
I based my original decision for static bonus to saves based on the 5++ being the same apparent cost on warwalker and vypers and the fact that eldar holofields are the same price no matter what vehicle you put them on. All the sisters of battle vehicles pay the same 5 points for their shield of faith. They have different armor values, but do have the same hullpoints.
This argument is getting circular, you note that GW makes errors in their costing of things, and then you go on to repeat and enforce those errors. The VDR should not be the same a GW's costing.
I'll give your changes a go, but I still believe the holofields will stay where they are at. It isn't a save, it is limited to eldar superheavies (who are limited to being walkers or skimmers and aren't allowed to have an armor value above 12) and replaces the option for heavier armor and voidshields for imperial units. It is priced at the same level as 3 voidshields, and if you were to trade them directly the things that can glance or pen the voidshields to drop them can also hurt the revenant. Things like the warhound would have to be shot with those lesser weapons then larger ones are NEEDED to actually hurt it. Plasma guns can legitimately kill a revenant on its best facing, the same is impossible on the SIDE armor of the warhound.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your ruleset prohibits the creation of Leman Russ tanks - they have 3HP and can carry a good six weapons (turret, hull, 2 sponsons, a pintle mount, and a hunter-killer).

Below, I demonstrate why durability multipliers (such as armour saves, invuln saves and holofields) MUST scale their price with the gain they provide, and how much of a difference in gain they can provide.


Both of the units I created are statistically exactly the same. They will have the same level of TT performance. However, the one with the 4++ save is a full 370 points cheaper. This is because durability modifiers based on a D6 roll, such as saves and holo-fields, are a proportional durability upgrade, rather than a linear one. It's no good saying "I don't feel that such-and-such is worth more than this other thing", when the gains of one is linear, and the gains of another is proportional. One of your previous arguments, Lyth, has been that a Revenant's holo-field is worth less (to it) than a Void Shield. That may or may not be true to that unit, but it is not true to other units. Many of the things I and Peregrine have point out really feth up your mathematics, but that is not a reason to reject our statements. The mathematics you have been using are not by definition correct. They are demonstrably incorrect.

The 4++ will die FASTER to strD because a 6 doesn't care. The one with more hullpoints will be 4 times more durable if it is sitting on a skyshield landing pad or behind a ruin or aegis defense line. How about explodes results? One will take half as many but lose a higher percentage of hullpoints with each shot.

So yes, if all that is being done is single glancing hits with no terrain on the table you have a legitimate point on hem being equal. But otherwise the 2 units are absolutely not equivalent and the one with more hullpoints will be in a much better position in game.

The eldar holofield is limited to superheavy units of one race that have to pay for skimmer or flyer if they aren't a walker that can't jink to save itself and for the most part isn't allowed an armor value above 12 and cannot purchase voidshields. They need the holofield otherwise they would be the most numerous superheavies in the game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The 4++ will die FASTER to strD because a 6 doesn't care.

On average, for every 6 result you will get five results of 2-5. A 4++ removes 2.5 of those results, for an average of 5 HP. So if we shoot each target six times (so we average one 6 result) with a D-weapon the one with lots of HP will take 19.5 HP, while the one with the 4++ will take 14.5. However, both a 9 HP vehicle with a 4++ and an 18 HP vehicle with no save are dead, primarily because of the 6 result. So, unless you're designing a Reaver titan equivalent or larger, we can pretty much ignore the 6 result because both tanks are equally dead if you roll one. And in that case the 4++ and doubled HP are of equal value.

Also, remember that the original argument against your point system was Eldar holofields, not a 4++. The holofield "save" works against a 6 result, making it worth considerably more than the 4++.

The one with more hullpoints will be 4 times more durable if it is sitting on a skyshield landing pad or behind a ruin or aegis defense line.

Weren't you the one who was arguing that a holofield "save" stacking with actual saves isn't a problem because superheavies are rarely going to get cover saves? Do they now get cover saves when it's convenient for defending your system?

How about explodes results? One will take half as many but lose a higher percentage of hullpoints with each shot.

Which balances out exactly. One loses twice as much of its total HP pool with every "explodes" result, the other takes twice as many "explodes" results.

@Lythrandire

It doesn't matter that a giving a 4++ invulnerable vs doubling hullpoints / wounds isn't *exactly* the same amount of points. I think its fairly safe to say the 4++ is valued slightly less due to situations like being able to sit on a Skyshield, or more HP giving greater durability vs instagib results. But the difference is slight, and it is proportional. Like, a 4++ should be valued at 20% less than doubling of hull points.

The point is that your system doesn't have any guarantee to get in even the same order of magnitude.
Static costed upgrades will be severely overvalued on cheap units (eg, a sane person is never going to spend 30pts doubling the durability of their 10 pt vehicle). They'll be severely undervalued on an expensive model (the situation Peregrine showed).
And in the case of the Revenant, where its 4++ DOES stack with invulnerable/cover, and it DOES ignore D-weapon hits, it should be valued as much as a doubling of hull points.


I think you'll get much better, more repeatable results if you switch to a % based system. Pay a base cost, each weapon has a base cost, and then nearly everything is % modifiers from there rather than static modifiers. We have plenty of evidence to show that combined static modifiers get really stupid really quickly.

And an unrelated question:
I haven't looked through your rules really, but have you got any rules around important stat break points?
For example, S8 is significantly better than S7 for killing marines due to Instant Death. Even though both wound on 2's vs nearly all infantry, an infantry-clearing weapon at S8 should be priced significantly higher. Likewise S9 is effectively equivalent to S8 in many cases, but S10 is significantly more than S9.
Similarly, there are only really a few important initiative points in the game: Faster than marines, Equal to marines, slower than marines, faster than thunderhammers, and I1. 99% of the time when you have I10 you may as well have I5, or even I2, because you'll get the same benefit.
The argument about range kind of falls in to this discussion. From my point of view, and all the game experience I have, any range over 72" is effectively lost in 99.99% of games. Really any range over 48" tends to be superfluous as well.

I just find it awesome that I can stick like 10 of Heavy Rail Rifles with Armorbane (30 pts each!) on a super heavy chassis and wind up with a pretty cheap vehicle wrecker. Or I could give them Skyfire+Interceptor and they'd be 33 points each... best AA ever!

I think I see where this inbalance is coming from.

-Lyth makes a VDR based on GW items (good start)
-Lyth uses process of elimination to work out what item costs what, by making sure all elements are able to make the items GW produces, to within a small percentage variation (damn good work)
-Lyth then assumes this has created a list of balanced points (ooh, so close)

While taking a unit and subtracting its cost for armour and guns may leave you with a 30 point margin for a 4++, that does not mean that the 4++ should be that value.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

I'll give your changes a go, but I still believe the holofields will stay where they are at. It isn't a save, it is limited to eldar superheavies (who are limited to being walkers or skimmers and aren't allowed to have an armor value above 12) and replaces the option for heavier armor and voidshields for imperial units. It is priced at the same level as 3 voidshields, and if you were to trade them directly the things that can glance or pen the voidshields to drop them can also hurt the revenant. Things like the warhound would have to be shot with those lesser weapons then larger ones are NEEDED to actually hurt it. Plasma guns can legitimately kill a revenant on its best facing, the same is impossible on the SIDE armor of the warhound.

I am going to pretend that you simply missed the fact I actually agreed to look at the percentages for invuls instead of you simply trying to continue arguing for arguments sake and quote myself here.

The holofield doesn't stop a 6 on the chart, it stops HITS. You have no clue what the result will be because you won't get to roll on the table. Say you have two walkers

Av 14/13/12 with one voidshield. Total points spent on defense 130 points
The other is
Av 12/12/11 with holofields. Total spent on defense 135

Now, say both are in the open and are hit with fifty strength 6 shots, then two strength D shots in the front armor.
On the first walker, it loses the voidshield after six hits, the rest of the shots are wasted. Then it takes 4 hullpoints on average from the strength D.

The second walker takes about 4 hullpoints of damage from the strength 6 hits, and two damage from the strD.

Side armor works out the exact same for the two as the front.

Rear armor hits for the first walker will total 7 hullpoints from the strength 6, and 4 from the strength D

Second walker will take around 8 hullpoints from the strength 6, and 2 from the strength D.

So the only time the second walker takes any less damage on average is if they are both being shot in the back, and that is only by one hullpoint. The rest of the time the second walker is actually taking MORE DAMAGE. I think that seems about right considering the second walker is actually paying MORE for survivability considering there was the possibility of a 6 on the strength D shot it negated. But considering there is an entirely equal chance it would have rolled a one on the chart and done nothing, that doesn't seem so out of line.

When you get to strength 7 on the front, those numbers rise dramatically in favor of the first walker.
It would lose 4 hullpoints on average, while the second walker loses 10. Side armor sees the second walker lose the same while the first loses 12. The rear armor for the second walker takes 14 hullpoints, while walker number one takes 12.

Now, I want to remind those who are following that these examples were done without an ap bonus at all. That means that in the first example with strength 6 if it were ap2 then half of the hullpoints removed from the rear of the second walker have a chance to do an additional d3 hullpoints. In scenario two, half of the hullpoints removed are pens, two thirds from the rear are pens, meaning they also threaten to cause an explodes result.

Strength 8/D gives you 14 hullpoints to the front and side of walker 2. 12 hullpoints to walker one front, 16 hullpoints on the side. Rear sees the second walker lose 18 hullpoints on average, the first walker loses 28.

As the strength of the normal shots get higher, the first walker maintains a lead in the front armor, attacks on their side armor will be about equal, and the second walker will take less damage by significant number from the rear. However if there is no strength D on the table the first walker will take 4 damage off of each total while the second walker will only get two back.

Now, since strength D doesn't care at all about av, lets compare three voidshields (105 points) to the holofields (100) against a straight 2 strength D hits over multiple turns. Turn one, voidshield unit takes no damage, but loses two voidshields. Holofield loses 2 damage. Turn two, no holofields regenerate, voidshields bearer takes two damage on average, holofield also loses 2 hullpoints. From then on they are equal because the holofields will regenerate one voidshields per turn, while the holofield will remain consistent. If the second round had seen one of the voidshields return (50/50 chance) then the holofield walker would have taken 4 more damage than the voidshield walker instead of two. So, holofields plus armor are only slightly better than a voidshields and better armor value with roughly equal points spent, and aren't better than taking three of the imperial equivalent to stop strength D.

Did that make any sense?