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.

Ok, you don't want to talk about saves right now, let's talk about how your fixed prices for weapons are wrong. Consider a simple heavy stubber:

On a Malcador the heavy stubber isn't worth very much. Since the Malcador is a superheavy it always gets to shoot the heavy stubber, but it only adds a bit of low-strength shooting that is unlikely to ever matter very much. The 10 point cost to buy one is probably a little too high, and as a result it's not a very popular upgrade.

On a knight the heavy stubber is worth significantly more. It provides the same additional shooting as it does on the Malcador, but it also enables the knight to fire its primary weapon(s) at a target (or targets) that it has no interest in charging, and throw a token heavy stubber shot on whatever unit it wants to charge so it can satisfy the "can only charge the target you shot at" restriction. This is very clearly worth more than the 10 points a Malcador pays for one (which is, again, too many points). If knights didn't come with one by default and had to pay 15 points to get it you'd see virtually every knight player pay those points.

On a knight that already has a heavy stubber an additional one isn't worth that much. It provides a little more flexibility in choosing assault targets (take your token shots at a second potential target just in case your primary target is killed by shooting or whatever), but it's definitely a case of diminishing returns and is much less valuable than the first heavy stubber. However, it does gain more benefit than the Malcador, so the price should still be a little more than whatever the Malcador pays.

So, just by looking at these three units we can conclude that it is impossible to set a single price for a heavy stubber. No matter what number we pick at least two of these three units will pay the wrong price for their gun. And that's just one of many factors that can cause the value (and therefore the fair point cost) of a weapon to vary. Other factors include presence or absence of the ordnance penalty, caps on how many full-BS weapons the unit can fire, what ranges the unit's other weapons have, etc. If you insist on having a single price for every weapon regardless of what unit it is added to then your system is wrong.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Say you have two walkers

This is a terrible example, for three reasons:

1) You're deliberately skewing the results by having the enemy waste STR 6 shooting vastly in excess of what it should take to bring down the single void shield on the first walker. After the six or so hits it takes to bring down one void shield the rest is going to be spent on killing other units. Devoting 50 shots to the first walker has no purpose besides allowing you to remove a bunch of HP from the second. A more accurate comparison would be six STR 6 shots and two STR D shots. And in that case the first walker loses 4 HP (all from the STR D), while the second loses 2.5 HP (0.5 from the STR 6, 2 from the STR D). The holofield is the clear winner.

2) You're comparing void shields to holofields, not AV 14 to holofields. The vast majority of the extra durability the high-AV walker gains in your examples is because of the void shields. You've blatantly moved the goalposts here.

3) You're ignoring the criticism of giving holofields a fixed price at all. Compare two AV 12 walkers, one with 9 HP and one with 18 HP. Clearly one of them gets a much greater durability increase from adding holofields, so why should both of them pay the same price? Holofields should instead have a variable price that depends on the total value (AV, HP, weapons, etc) of the unit they're protecting. Anything else is a broken system.

Except the holofields don't give a flat 50% survivability, it is either a 33% or a 50% depending on if it moved.

A heavy stubber should be 5 points. The superheavy units from forgeworld pay 10 because when they were designing their supers they could still lose weapons (which I agree with)

What my example showed is that eldar superheavies are much more fragile than anyone else's. A revenant titan can be killed from behind by BOLTGUNS for crying out loud! I don't care how unlikely, it can actually happen. Melta guns have a 50% chance to PEN it's highest armor value OUTSIDE of melta range, and a combi plasma toting ten man vet squad can take off 3 hullpoints on average on the best facing of the revenant WITH HOLOFIELDS. Why are the holofields so much better than higher armor and voidshields to you? I can't understand why you think that everyone should be cheaper AND more survivable than the eldar.

The 9 hullpoints to 18 hullpoints example. The one with 18 hullpoints already spent 300 more points on survivability. The cost per hullpoints ratio is designed for diminishing returns on investment, that is the part you are missing. Every hullpoint purchased after the first 6 is paying less and less for the special rules superheavies have until all it is is extra hullpoints. That is why the holofields are the way they are. All it does is negate some of the chances that hullpoints are lost in the exact same way higher armor value makes certain weapons useless against it and how voidshields offer some protection from dangerous weapon systems.

It fills both rolls in an eldar army, and only the eldar can use it because the things it replaces CANNOT be used by the eldar. They can't make an av 13/13/12 walker with 6 hullpoints. They aren't allowed to.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except the holofields don't give a flat 50% survivability, it is either a 33% or a 50% depending on if it moved.

Except for the first turn when going second it will always have moved, even if only 0.0000000000001". Holofields are almost always a 50% survival boost. And nitpicking the exact percentage doesn't change the fact that the holofield is worth a different amount of points on different units.

A heavy stubber should be 5 points. The superheavy units from forgeworld pay 10 because when they were designing their supers they could still lose weapons (which I agree with)

No, they pay 10 points because every IG vehicle pays 10 points, including codex vehicles. A heavy stubber on a Malcador costs the same as a heavy stubber on a LRBT. Seriously, if you're going to even try to reverse-engineer point costs you need to at least know what those point costs are in the official rules.

Also, did you even read what I wrote? The issue is not whether a heavy stubber should cost 5 points or 10 points, it's that it shouldn't always cost the same. If the fair price for a heavy stubber on a Malcador is 5 points then it is NOT 5 points on a knight.

What my example showed is that eldar superheavies are much more fragile than anyone else's. A revenant titan can be killed from behind by BOLTGUNS for crying out loud! I don't care how unlikely, it can actually happen. Melta guns have a 50% chance to PEN it's highest armor value OUTSIDE of melta range, and a combi plasma toting ten man vet squad can take off 3 hullpoints on average on the best facing of the revenant WITH HOLOFIELDS. Why are the holofields so much better than higher armor and voidshields to you? I can't understand why you think that everyone should be cheaper AND more survivable than the eldar.

Again, what does this have to do with fixed costs vs. variable costs? Forget the comparison with non-Eldar vehicles and just look at Eldar vehicles. A holofield on a 500 point vehicle is worth considerably more than a holofield on a 50,000 point vehicle. If you set a single price for the holofield for both vehicles then your system is wrong.

The 9 hullpoints to 18 hullpoints example. The one with 18 hullpoints already spent 300 more points on survivability. The cost per hullpoints ratio is designed for diminishing returns on investment, that is the part you are missing. Every hullpoint purchased after the first 6 is paying less and less for the special rules superheavies have until all it is is extra hullpoints.

What does this have to do with anything? The issue is the additional cost to add the holofield to the vehicle once you have designed everything else. How much you pay to get those HP has nothing to do with this.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of diminishing returns on investment, I'll explain.

Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

The heavy stubber is overcosted as an upgrade because it is there to give you a chance to keep your bigger guns. Imperial knights only pay 5 each. If I change every point value based on synergy with other weapons systems the world would run out of paper. These rules give you a viable vehicle, you play said vehicle to play test, you adjust points.

Doesn't seem too hard to me.

You could calculate the cost of the weapons based off a percentage table that factors in speed of the vehicle + av and such similar to the way you priced special rules for the vehicle weapons.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Apparently you don't understand the concept of diminishing returns on investment, I'll explain.

Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Right. So, rather fairly, you pay through the nose to get excessive hullpoints. We already understand this. This has not been our argument.

Our argument is that when presented with a choice of:

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 600 pts

vs

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 30 pts

Which one is fairer? The latter is achieved through taking a 4++ save upgrade. How is that fair?

Actually Perigrine the pintle Heavy Stubber only costs 5 points now, it was erreta'd

 master of ordinance wrote:
Actually Perigrine the pintle Heavy Stubber only costs 5 points now, it was erreta'd

They still do those?

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Apparently you don't understand the concept of diminishing returns on investment, I'll explain.

Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Right. So, rather fairly, you pay through the nose to get excessive hullpoints. We already understand this. This has not been our argument.

Our argument is that when presented with a choice of:

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 600 pts

vs

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 30 pts

Which one is fairer? The latter is achieved through taking a 4++ save upgrade. How is that fair?[/quote/]

The one gives guaranteed hullpoints that won't be mitigated at all by a single "6" on strength D or a failed die roll and will have less problems if an explodes result is rolled. Also, that was never your argument. Your argument was that the one that has paid for the extra hullpoints should have to pay MORE because it gives one more protection than the other. When I showed that to not be the case, you changed your argument. What was that thing you said earlier about goalposts?

I will tell you exactly why it is fair. Because the player who is fighting it doesn't HAVE to chew through twice as many hullpoints. They just need you to fail saves. Saves that can easily be replicated for free by a 1 story ruin, aegis defense line, or intervening models and a 10 point camo net. When o give math, I am told to look at actual gameplay, when I give gameplay I am told to look at the mathematical averages.

When are you going to realise that I may actually know what I am doing with this thing and actually listen when I give an explanation. Super heavy vehicles will pay a static cost for invul saves, holofields, voidshields, and ork fields. Normal vehicles will pay a point total for the invul saves based on size category because their points don't diminish on returns the way superheavies do.

Thank you for pointing that and the need for a minimum point value for vehicles based on size out to me. That was exceptionally helpful.

I will also be making each racial group their own chart to start and will divide the weapon/race specific upgrades charts into separate ones for small arms, normal, and apocalypse level sets to allow ease of reference.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Apparently you don't understand the concept of diminishing returns on investment, I'll explain.

Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Right. So, rather fairly, you pay through the nose to get excessive hullpoints. We already understand this. This has not been our argument.

Our argument is that when presented with a choice of:

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 600 pts

vs

-Start at 18 HP, add another 18 HP for 30 pts

Which one is fairer? The latter is achieved through taking a 4++ save upgrade. How is that fair?

The one gives guaranteed hullpoints that won't be mitigated at all by a single "6" on strength D or a failed die roll and will have less problems if an explodes result is rolled. Also, that was never your argument. Your argument was that the one that has paid for the extra hullpoints should have to pay MORE because it gives one more protection than the other. When I showed that to not be the case, you changed your argument. What was that thing you said earlier about goalposts?
This has been my argument the whole time. You've been missing the point. How does such a large increase in defence only worth 30 points? Sure, its mitigated by one or two things, but for the most part it is still there. It is still extremely powerful. It is a much larger gain that on a weaker unit. It is worth waaay more than 30 points, even with Str D. What's not to get about that? At this point youre just dismissing the argument out of hand simply because it's harder to implement.

I will tell you exactly why it is fair. Because the player who is fighting it doesn't HAVE to chew through twice as many hullpoints. They just need you to fail saves. Saves that can easily be replicated for free by a 1 story ruin, aegis defense line, or intervening models and a 10 point camo net. When o give math, I am told to look at actual gameplay, when I give gameplay I am told to look at the mathematical averages.
Oh for feths sake. A 4++ is STILL worth more to a tougher unit than a less tough unit.

When are you going to realise that I may actually know what I am doing with this thing and actually listen when I give an explanation. Super heavy vehicles will pay a static cost for invul saves, holofields, voidshields, and ork fields. Normal vehicles will pay a point total for the invul saves based on size category because their points don't diminish on returns the way superheavies do.
The reason I don't realise it is because you're being very, very stupid about this. Why on earth should a greater bonus in defence be the same cost at all times,on anything?

Thank you for pointing that and the need for a minimum point value for vehicles based on size out to me. That was exceptionally helpful.
Sarcasm won't help.

I will also be making each racial group their own chart to start and will divide the weapon/race specific upgrades charts into separate ones for small arms, normal, and apocalypse level sets to allow ease of reference.

Because with the diminishing returns on investment for superheavy vehicles and gargantuan creatures in regards to health you would NEED the price to stay the same otherwise the unit won't be worth what you are paying for it to be on the table.

What is so hard for you to comprehend about the fact that instead of making the units pay more for bonuses as they increase in durability I make them pay higher percentages for that durability to allow for easier math when building vehicles. I did the percentages work in the background to allow people to simply write out a new vehicle.

An aegis defense line is always the same points no matter what you put behind it.

The shield of faith is always worth the same amount of points no matter what the av is on the unit

A skyshield landing pad is the same amount of points no matter what you put on it.

A voidshields for is the same amount of points whether it is on an imperial bunker or a warlord titan.

A 4+ cover save is the same level of protection against 90% of all ranged shots in the game and costs you nothing to put on the table.

Why should I charge more for those thing in my vdr when nothing else seems to? These units are for warhammer 40k, they need to be usable in that system otherwise there is no point to making the update.

Finally, I wasn't being sarcastic. I told you what you have added to my work that I found valuable, and the rest has been you ignoring me when I tell you the purpose behind what I have done. Increasing av from one point to another has always resulted in one strength level being negated entirely and giving a reduction of capability to every other strength value besides strD. The holofields represent that benefit in game while allowing the eldar to still pay similar poi t totals to other superheavies in the game and maintain their low av typecast.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What is so hard for you to comprehend about the fact that instead of making the units pay more for bonuses as they increase in durability I make them pay higher percentages for that durability to allow for easier math when building vehicles.

I'm pretty sure no one is failing to comprehend that. They are arguing that it's not a valid way of doing it.

Arguing "Well the rest of 40k has mostly fixed values as well" isn't a great argument because...

1. Most people think it's a design flaw that equipment costs are homogenised in the rest of 40k anyway. An IG Vet with a lasgun costs +1 point compared to a Guardsman with a lasgun which is a reasonable premium of +20%. An IG Vet with a plasma or melta gun is still only +1 point compared to a Guardsman with a plasma or melta gun, a premium of only 5% or 7% respectively. This is a flaw, not an intelligent design feature and it's why some units end up with options that are blatantly better (getting to the point where some units have options that are almost "must haves" and other options that are "only take this if you're stupid or a super fluffy bunny").

2. The problem is exacerbated when you use fixed values to build an entire unit. It's bad enough that regular 40k has fixed values for weapons, when an entire unit is built on that premise then you end up with wild swings in balance that result in people questioning the value of rules that are so inherently unbalanced, you reach the point where the better way to determine a unit's value is just play a game and take a wild guess at what it's worth based on its performance.

It cannot be an invalid way of doing g it because it will give the exact same point totals as the way you are wanting to do it!!!

Pay attention, I will go over this again.

I am making them pay more for their hullpoints on a gradient scale. That means that while each hullpoint is worth less the more you add, their point value remains the same. Then you add a fixed value rule to them. While it IS stronger on that unit, all it is really doing is buying back the points wasted on the extra hullpoints. What you are wanting me to do (in order for it to work out mathematically) is make the hullpoints all worth the same without any waste in points and add a percentage scale to all of the saves to accommodate their importance to the vehicle at large. My system already does what you ask, it just does it a different way. You don't like the way I reach the same conclusion (points wise) in regards to mathematical balance and frankly I don't care. The math will work out either way, my way doesn't require the person using it to have a calculator, your version does. I will go with the user friendly version any day because the point of this is to have people be able to use it.

My math does exactly what you want it to, you just (for some reason) are unable to see it. And since you don't understand it, you are trying to make me do the math differently. I am not going to do that. For non superheavies/gargantuans, yes a scale total will be necessary. I see that, did so when you brought it up. But for the superheavies themselves it isn't needed because I built the counterbalance into them from the start to allow that to be the case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here, I'll show you exactly what I mean.

First six hullpoints 100 points.

Next six hullpoints are really just there to be a buffer against strength D and add no other special rules. They are actually only worth about 15 points each.

Six hullpoints after that are around 10 points a piece because all it is doing is adding hullpoints that most games wouldn't see torn through any way.

Every six after that drop in price until you hit about 5 points a piece.

So, when your six hullpoint pays 30 points for the 4++, it is paying 30 points.

When your 9 hullpoint superheavy buys a 30 point 4++, it is really paying 85 points

When that 18 hullpoint superheavy is buying a 4++ it is paying ~280 points for the privilege. That is where you aren't comprehending what I am saying to you.

wat.


We're discussing the rules that you have created and written down - we can't discuss the rules you have imagined and not told anyone.

The one gives guaranteed hullpoints that won't be mitigated at all by a single "6" on strength D or a failed die roll and will have less problems if an explodes result is rolled. Also, that was never your argument. Your argument was that the one that has paid for the extra hullpoints should have to pay MORE because it gives one more protection than the other. When I showed that to not be the case, you changed your argument. What was that thing you said earlier about goalposts?

Sure, it the hull points should be worth SLIGHTLY more. Probably. It gives a buffer (and thus smoother damage curve). It stacks with cover (if you can get it) (but only from ranged). But in most cases it is functionally equivalent, and so should cost nearly the same. Not 20x more.

I was trying to explain why things were priced the way they were, nobody seemed to understand the concept I told them. I didn't want to, but I felt I had to get into the actual technical side of the mathematics. The thing with the 4++ is it doesn't give you actual hullpoints, it gives you POSSIBLE hullpoints. If you don't want your superheavy walker killed by a deep striking meltavet squad, then you may want to pay for the extra hullpoints as opposed to the 4++. Or meet in the middle where you get slightly less hullpoints but still get the invul save.

If all you want is a smaller superheavy vehicle, then the 4++ is the better answer. But those who want a bigger one may be willing to spend more hullpoints to warrant the bigger model with more guns. The vdr was and is just a way to put rules on a model you had an idea for to be able to put it on the table.

I will be updating the current ruleset once I get my hands on the new tau codex, no point in doing it twice in one month.

And you will also notice that the only flat rate increases in the vdr are defensive stats. Weapon costs rise based on ballistic skill, so the veterans to guardsmen comparison doesn't actually work with weapons. Now, what does camo cloaks give one above the other? That is where points being equal between units matters.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The vdr was and is just a way to put rules on a model you had an idea for to be able to put it on the table.

Then why do you keep attempting to use your calculations to justify GW's point costs? Remember that "the Revenant is balanced because my system says so" thread?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
So, when your six hullpoint pays 30 points for the 4++, it is paying 30 points.

When your 9 hullpoint superheavy buys a 30 point 4++, it is really paying 85 points

Except it isn't, because you set the 4++ at a fixed price. You can't say "the price of the 4++ is built into the price per HP" because it's possible to make a vehicle without a 4++. If you've incorporated some of the value of the 4++ into the HP costs then any vehicle without a 4++ is going to be too expensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Whe n you build a superheavy vehicle, you get all of the superheavy rules and 6 hullpoints for the first 100 points. The next 100 points only gets you 3 more hullpoints. The percentage of the points that are spent on the speed, damage mitigation, weapon options, sitting fire, and either the improved ram or stomp is now slightly lower due to spreading those points out over more hullpoints. The percentage gets lower and lower the more hullpoints you buy, but the hullpoints themselves never lower in price. Look at the chart for hullpoint cost based on speed. When you look at those you realise that hullpoints are only 5-10 points each after a certain point. Allowing you to make normal vehicles at a viable price point because they can be exploded. Superheavies can't, so they remain the same price. But they paid for all of that ability in the first 100 points. After that point every hullpoint is really only worth 5-10 points but they are paying 33.3 for each of them BECAUSE IT THEN ALLOWS ME TO GIVE A STANDARD PRICE ON EVERYTHING ELSE DUE TO WASTED POINTS ON HEALTH.

Nope, wrong again. In my heavy stubber example all three vehicles have the same 6 HP. So you can't appeal to per-HP point differences to explain the differences in weapon costs vs. weapon values.

The heavy stubber is overcosted as an upgrade because it is there to give you a chance to keep your bigger guns.

And you missed the point entirely. The issue is not the value of the heavy stubber for a single vehicle, it's the DIFFERENCE IN VALUE between multiple vehicles. All of them get the same chance to keep their bigger guns by losing the heavy stubber instead (zero chance since they're all superheavies and ignore "weapon destroyed" results), so you can just ignore this factor. The only way this would be at all a credible argument is if the Malcador paid the same price as the knight for a heavy stubber because the knight's "charge the right target" value is balanced against the Malcador's "save your main gun" value. But since the Malcador gets no additional "save your main gun" value compared to the knight it can't be used to justify the point cost.

If I change every point value based on synergy with other weapons systems the world would run out of paper.

What's your point? The fact that designing a vehicle creation system is difficult does not mean that your system is correct. If you want to say "my point systems do not reflect the real value of a vehicle, they're just a crude approximation at best" then that's fine, but if you're going to do that then you need to stop insisting that your numbers must be correct.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It cannot be an invalid way of doing g it because it will give the exact same point totals as the way you are wanting to do it!!!
Lol wat? How could you possibly know what the refined value is? We're starting with GW items, and then refining them, since the GW values are bullgak at best.

My math does exactly what you want it to, you just (for some reason) are unable to see it. And since you don't understand it, you are trying to make me do the math differently. I am not going to do that. For non superheavies/gargantuans, yes a scale total will be necessary. I see that, did so when you brought it up. But for the superheavies themselves it isn't needed because I built the counterbalance into them from the start to allow that to be the case.
Again, lol wat? Your maths demonstrably does not do what we want it to do. We understand it perfectly. At this point your arguments are motivated by the idea that your maths are/have always been perfectly correct, and you're refusing the evidence against it.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
That is where you aren't comprehending what I am saying to you.

No, we are.... we just think you're wrong.

If you've built in some of the cost of the 4++ in to hull points themselves.... your hull point values are wrong. Either the hull point values are wrong or the 4++ values are wrong because neither can be fixed. You must account for synergy otherwise you create a situation where one option is always better than another (in this case, a 4++ is better than trying to double your hull points because it almost doubles your endurance for far less than the cost of doubling your hull points because part of the cost of a 4++ is buried in the cost of a hull point even if you choose not to take the 4++).

That's just in the case of saves, in the case of weaponry the same thing happens (like Peregrine is pointing out with the Heavy Stubber).

Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle. It gives you three shots to throw at some other unit nearby to try and kill them. Just because the heavy stubber allows the knight to have not wasted all of its points on the giant chainsword it carries around. Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower. You guys are being rediculous. Everything in the game varies in capability based on synergy, if you don't like how something synergizes in the game, use the rules here and make something that does. Believe it or not, it works.

What am I supposed to do for you? Every option you put on a superheavy vehicle has its points balanced out by the equipment attached to it, including weapons. A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it. But, when you start adding higher armor values and weapons it starts to fall in line with other superheavy vehicles in the game and becomes more efficient. That is how balance is achieved. Does a baneblade lose efficiency simply because of the points it spent on the three extra hullpoints? Yes. If it were 6hullpoints and 130 points cheaper (gun is overpriced) then you would have a tank at 405 points that would allow you to control the table with heavy hitting firepower and more than adequate defense.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing, and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.

Salym: my math will give you a vehicle that is in line with any other vehicle games workshop makes. I am making some of the changes you asked, arguing with me until I put out the next update will succeed at nothing other than you being blocked. I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING! If you want these things, do it yourself.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?
Personally, I want to see this only on the really big stackable things. You've been attempting to incorporate it already by having the cost of a 4++ placed partially in the HP costs. Separate the two, and that's several arguments solved immediately.

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle. It gives you three shots to throw at some other unit nearby to try and kill them. Just because the heavy stubber allows the knight to have not wasted all of its points on the giant chainsword it carries around. Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower. You guys are being rediculous. Everything in the game varies in capability based on synergy, if you don't like how something synergizes in the game, use the rules here and make something that does. Believe it or not, it works.
I kinda agree here - its impossible to account for everything, and aside from targeting capabilities a subber is a stubber is a stubber. Yes, it allows an IK to fire the main gun at something it isn't charging. But the cost of the gun assumes it is that effective anyway. Its the same reason we think LR's are overpriced (aside from a crippling weakness of GW making terribad vehicle rules).

What am I supposed to do for you? Every option you put on a superheavy vehicle has its points balanced out by the equipment attached to it, including weapons. A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it. But, when you start adding higher armor values and weapons it starts to fall in line with other superheavy vehicles in the game and becomes more efficient. That is how balance is achieved. Does a baneblade lose efficiency simply because of the points it spent on the three extra hullpoints? Yes. If it were 6hullpoints and 130 points cheaper (gun is overpriced) then you would have a tank at 405 points that would allow you to control the table with heavy hitting firepower and more than adequate defense.
Personally, I think this would be more easily resolved by starting with a base price for an Av10 3HP tank, and then adding/subtracting points for the various classifications. Trying to get everything to work on HP alone is fascinating to watch, but seems to result in far more aggro than it's worth.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing, and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.
GW demonstrably either does not know what they're doing, or are intentionally making imbalances to increase sales. The game is not balanced as/is, so trying to recreate it is a lost cause. Also Peregrine is like this to everyone. if he gets annoyed by something, he'll stop at nothing to argue it to the ground.

Selym: my math will give you a vehicle that is in line with any other vehicle games workshop makes. I am making some of the changes you asked, arguing with me until I put out the next update will succeed at nothing other than you being blocked. I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING! If you want these things, do it yourself.
Blocked? You mean Banhammer? Nah. Being able to recreate the GW prices is a flaw in the system, not a positive attribute. GW makes up random bullgak numbers and calls them a system. I'm continuing to argue about the 4++ because you're presenting an argument against it. Which indicates to me that the change would not appear in an update.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.
Aww damnit, you've missed the point again!

I trust the math here. TBH I would mostly be interested in seeing an analysis of which models are statistical outliers here. Are Leman Russes way more efficient than we thought? Can the Maleceptor finally do SOMETHING??!

 luke1705 wrote:
I trust the math here. TBH I would mostly be interested in seeing an analysis of which models are statistical outliers here. Are Leman Russes way more efficient than we thought? Can the Maleceptor finally do SOMETHING??!

Trusting it does not mean its correct, nor does it mean it has come to the right conclusions. Also, you cannot make proper russes in this ruleset.

With the leman Russ, I see the hunter killer missile as a codex specific upgrades as opposed to a weapon. Same with the heavy stubber really. Heavy vehicles will be given the option for more guns than normal vehicles, which will be a good and fluffy addition to the ruleset.

The only thing I believe my system to be doing right and within games workshop's own system is the survivability metrics. You will see the outliers being shown in the weapons sections of the document.

Some leman Russ are very cost effective. The exterminator autocannon for example seems to be priced at less than a normal autocannon. Maleceptor should actually only max out at about 145 points. The vdr balances all monstrous creatures against the better ones (riptide's, wraithlord, dreadknights) so tyranid will see a significant improvement.

My system shows where points are, and what they should be based on comparison to other weapons of similar capabilities.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
With the leman Russ, I see the hunter killer missile as a codex specific upgrades as opposed to a weapon. Same with the heavy stubber really. Heavy vehicles will be given the option for more guns than normal vehicles, which will be a good and fluffy addition to the ruleset.
Your ruleset needs a note stating that codex upgrades can be taken in addition. Also, LRBT proper has four guns: Battlecannon, Lascannon, 2x Heavy Bolter. The VDR restricts it to 3.

The only thing I believe my system to be doing right and within games workshop's own system is the survivability metrics. You will see the outliers being shown in the weapons sections of the document.
I feel I may be arguing the case on this for a very, very long time. However, I like arguing.

Some leman Russ are very cost effective. The exterminator autocannon for example seems to be priced at less than a normal autocannon. Maleceptor should actually only max out at about 145 points. The vdr balances all monstrous creatures against the better ones (riptide's, wraithlord, dreadknights) so tyranid will see a significant improvement.
I would say this is because armour is overvalued most of the time, making the LRBT main guns look waay cheaper than they are. TT-wise, the LR Exterminator is effective, but not overly efficient.

My system shows where points are, and what they should be based on comparison to other weapons of similar capabilities.

You are forgetting the "tank" property that allows for one additional gun. Also, in the vehicle upgrades section you will notice a space in the chart that allows for codex specific upgrades at the price listed

I made survivability equal for points for vehicles and monstrous creatures based on the effectiveness of weapons strength 6-10.

It ensures one isn't significantly stronger than the other and monstrous creatures pay more per health point due to the inability to be exploded and their inherent smash special rule.

I also enjoy a good argument, we can but heads all day long. Just remain civil and I'm all good

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

I'm not saying you have to individually consider every possible synergy, when it comes to individual weapon synergies, probably not... but yes, you have to consider obvious ones like hull points and invulnerable saves. There's no other way to do it except include a couple of tables, one table which indicates how much each hull point costs and a separate table which indicates how much the invulnerable save costs given how many hull points.

It's still not going to be ideal, but it's going to be a hell of a lot closer.

Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

You're still missing the point. Adding a 4++ invul save should cost a bit less than it costs to double the hull points. So, for example (and I'm just making these numbers up).

If a vehicle has 3HP and to add an additional 3HP costs 100pts, a 4++ should be around 90pts.

If a vehicle has 4HP and to add an additional 4HP costs 130pts, a 4++ should cost around 120pts

If a vehicle has 10HP and to add an additional 10HP costs 300pts, a 4++ should probably cost around 270-290pts.

Now the actual values may be off as I haven't considered what 1HP should actually be worth, but the point I'm trying to make IS THEY SHOULD SCALE TOGETHER so that a vehicle with X HP and a 4++ costs a similar amount of points as a vehicle with 2X HP and no save.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Allseeingskink: if you opt to give yourself a 4++ on a superheavy, it will be more expensive than the current iteration. It will be about 60 points and other than voidshields you won't be able to add together multiple defensive abilities like holofields and invul saves because nothing in the game does that.

You're still missing the point. Adding a 4++ invul save should cost a bit less than it costs to double the hull points. So, for example (and I'm just making these numbers up).

If a vehicle has 3HP and to add an additional 3HP costs 100pts, a 4++ should be around 90pts.

If a vehicle has 4HP and to add an additional 4HP costs 130pts, a 4++ should cost around 120pts

If a vehicle has 10HP and to add an additional 10HP costs 300pts, a 4++ should probably cost around 270-290pts.

Now the actual values may be off as I haven't considered what 1HP should actually be worth, but the point I'm trying to make IS THEY SHOULD SCALE TOGETHER so that a vehicle with X HP and a 4++ costs a similar amount of points as a vehicle with 2X HP and no save.

This.

I have understood what you guys are saying, but I am looking at it this way. You can't have a string of bad luck and start the game with less hullpoints. If your vehicle has camo netting and a ruin nearby you have wasted all of those extra points on the invul save. Because gameplay will occasionally offer better circumstances than what you have paid for. The extra hullpoints are a guaranteed return on investment. The invul save is simply hoping the dice roll true.

Take terminators for example. They pay for a 5++, but most terrain gives that bonus or better for free due to cover saves. Making terminators look like hot garbage because of wasted points. The heirophant biotitan has a 6++, it actually had to pay for that. How often is that even going to matter in a game when the creature that has it can get cover easily and is toughness 9 with a 2+ save? What you guys are proposing is that it should pay MORE than what a sisters of battle rhino does even though it means so much LESS than it does for the rhino.

The toughness/saves matrix and the av matrix combined with the hullpoints and wounds charts make you want to spend extra points on the protection of the expensive commodity of wounds/hullpoints. If you don't, your creation will crumple like a wet tissue. By inducing the expenditure on higher defense by way of the pricing system for av and toughness I am ensuring that people will want to make their unit so durable that the addition of things like invul saves will be seen as something trivial, or at the very least unnecessary.

Take the c'tan for example, they actually pay points for a 4+ armor save. Why? It serves absolutely no purpose in the game when the only weapons that can ignore an invul save also ignore armor, and the waste is easily recognizable when you put it on the tabletop. The same will happen with invuls and saves in the vdr. People will buy a 5++ save more often than a 4++ because most of the time they know ruins will be around and if something ignores cover a 5++ should be enough to sabmve them. They are going g to either buy a better armor save than they have an invul save or they won't buy an armor save. Which will mean they save means less to their creation or they are hoping to bank on the invul carrying the unit. Not to mention that the higher the save on a monstrous creature, the less likely there would be weapons able to penetrate it anyway. So if they bought a 3++, but everything hitting them is only ap4 or less they would have been better off just laying the points for the armor save.

 Selym wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Actually Perigrine the pintle Heavy Stubber only costs 5 points now, it was erreta'd

They still do those?

I know, I thought I was dreaming when I saw it but apparently they do do them.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Synergy. You are now wanting a different point value per weapon based entirely on how well someone builds their vehicle due to the possible synergies they MAY have with other weapon systems?

Yep, that's how balance works. If your system doesn't account for these factors then your system is broken.

Believe it or not, a heavy stubber doesn't do a thing on the imperial knight that it doesn't do on the malkador or any other vehicle.

Lol? Being able to shoot your main gun at whatever you want without limiting your charge options is not "nothing". It's a significance in difference between the knight and the Malcador, even if you decide to label it "not wasting your chainsword" instead of "charging a different target".

Remember when I said the lord of skulls would actually be worth it's points if you simply added a heavy stubber, and was told how wrong I was? Now you are telling me how much more a heavy stubber should be for the knight because it allows it to do the same thing I suggested for the khornmower.

Oh FFS. Did you even bother to read the argument I was actually making? Adding a heavy stubber to the khornemower makes it a better unit. And, like the knight, that heavy stubber is worth more than it would be on a Malcador. It does not make it a good unit because it is currently overpriced by significantly more than the value of being able to charge whatever it wants.

A 9 hullpoint superheavy tank with no weapons and av10 is 295 points. It isn't worth it, nobody would build it.

Then you admit that your system is broken. If your point values do not appropriately represent the value of an AV 10 superheavy tank with 9 HP and no weapons then your point values are wrong.

Perigrin: my system showed that games workshop may know what they are doing

It did no such thing. All you've done is create a system where you made sure that your points added up to the official costs for some units, and then used the fact that your points are the same to "prove" that GW's points are right. That's blatant circular reasoning.

Also, as I've clearly demonstrated, GW does not use a system like this to determine their point costs.

and I will point out that all you have as a counter to that idea is saying "no! I don't like them, they're stupid! They can't be right!" Like a petulent child. I am done arguing with you, you don't like the game, don't agree with their points system on a whole, and seem to enjoy bullying people until they see everything you way. I don't have to please you, not at all actually. Because you can simply continue NOT playing the game, and NOT even using the system and if you are so much more capable than myself and games workshop then make your own rules and stop badgering me. I don't owe you a damn thing, stop treating me like this was something you are paying me to do.

I see. So you'd rather whine and call me a "petulant child" than address the substance of my arguments? I've done way more than tell you that your points suck, I've explained in detail WHY they are wrong and why your entire approach to balance is fundamentally flawed. The fact that you don't want to accept those problems doesn't mean that you haven't been given the evidence.

I was asked to make the saves, weapons, and other special rules be percentage based. I AM NOT GOING TO DO THAT, STOP ASKING!

Then your system will continue to be wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The invul save is simply hoping the dice roll true.

Do you understand how a bell curve works? A 4++ can give you fewer effective HP than double HP if your dice are bad, but it can also give you more effective HP if your dice are good. The two balance out, you can't ignore the good results and use the bad ones to justify a cheaper point cost.

People will buy a 5++ save more often than a 4++ because most of the time they know ruins will be around and if something ignores cover a 5++ should be enough to sabmve them.

...

I don't think you understand how math works.