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.

Do you realise how absurd it is to ask ANYONE to give a separate but equally valid point total for EVERY gun and weapon in the game based on how well they work with EVERY OTHER gun and weapon in the game? What world do you live in where that is a valid request? My points work for an av 10/10/10, 9 hullpoint superheavy, it is simply not going to do much so people will want to add things to it. Not everyone is looking for a -1 point tank, thank you for showing me they exist but don't think for a moment you have contributed anything else of substance to this discussion.

Also, I did not ensure all of my points were balanced against games workshop. What I did was look for units people were generally in agreement on their balance and used those as my baseline. Then I BALANCED every weapon in the system against them. Have you actually looked through the vdr, or are you so dead set on proving the game of 40k is useless that you can't be bothered to see what is actually written down. I added a scaling curve to hullpoints as an incentive to get people to purchase special options and weapons to make cool vehicles.

Your entire argument is as follows

Games workshop can't ever be right.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that sometimes games workshop can be right.
The vdr that Lyth made has to be wrong for my original assertion to be right.
I cannot be wrong.
The vdr made by Lyth has to be wrong.

If you believe what I said about my math will not change to please you (and it won't) and you believe it will never be right (which you will) then you have nothing further to add to the discussion here. Feel free to continue to comment, but I will not be browbeaten until you fall back in love with games workshop.

Don't like my rules, make your own.

I've been lurking this thread, because it's been hilarious watching Lyth argue in circles, pulling nonsense out of thin air. It's also amazing seeing Perigrine look like the most reasonable man in the room. Pure gold.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What I did was look for units people were generally in agreement on their balance and used those as my baseline.

By this, I'm assuming we're back to the clearly false claims about the Baneblade, Shadowsword and Revenant Titan *ALL* being balanced for their points, correct?

Where exactly was this chorus of people who claimed that each of those units were appropriate balancing points? It can't have been on Dakka or the tournament scene, because the conventional wisdom says that the Baneblade and Shadowsword are both clearly overpriced, while the Revenant is generally deemed somewhat underpriced*.

Also, the bit about overpaying for 9, 12 hull points? Pure nonsense, because there was no minimum HP in order to purchase the void shield or stealth.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Don't like my rules, make your own.

Here we have the most honest and true line in I've read, in which Lyth reveals that the VDR isn't really about creating something that works, it's about ego stroking.

It's OK, you can take your ball and run home to mommy, away from those mean, mean bullies. Mommy still loves you, yes, she does. You're still the smartest, bestest kid, ever!
____

*: ETA, as an primary Eldar player, I'm of a mind that the Revenant might not be especially underpriced, at least, not in the context of other Eldar units like the Wraithknight...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Do you realise how absurd it is to ask ANYONE to give a separate but equally valid point total for EVERY gun and weapon in the game based on how well they work with EVERY OTHER gun and weapon in the game?

Yep. That's one of the reasons why we don't insist on doing VDR-style rules, because getting accurate results requires much more effort and complexity than just guessing at an appropriate price and putting it through iterative playtesting. It's not my fault that you're trying to use a bad method.

My points work for an av 10/10/10, 9 hullpoint superheavy, it is simply not going to do much so people will want to add things to it.

You admitted that the point values are wrong.

Also, "people will add more stuff" isn't a valid response, for two reasons:

1) If your numbers are wrong then the process you used to create those numbers must be wrong. If an AV 10/10/10 superheavy with 9 HP and no weapons is so expensive under your system that nobody will want to build one then you have assigned it the wrong point cost. It doesn't matter if nobody actually makes that unit, there's a mistake somewhere in your process because an accurate process doesn't produce such obviously bad results.

2) What if I made a model of a big cargo hauler and I want to give it rules for a convoy escort scenario? Why should I have to add a bunch of guns to it just to make the point values work? The only reason to even consider using a VDR-style system is if you have cool models that you want to give rules to, and that means covering a whole bunch of "fluffy" stuff that has nothing to do with "make the most effective vehicle for my army so I can win games".

Not everyone is looking for a -1 point tank, thank you for showing me they exist but don't think for a moment you have contributed anything else of substance to this discussion.

I see. So you're just going to label all of my other examples of your system producing bad results "nothing constructive" so you don't have to admit that your system is wrong?

And of course nobody is going to build a -1 point tank in a real game, because their opponent is going to say "I don't care if some guy's house rules say you can, I'm not playing against that". But that's not the point. The point is that if your system is capable of outputting a -1 point vehicle then your system is wrong. It's the equivalent of running a computer program and getting "error: divide by zero". It doesn't matter what combinations of inputs got you to that point, there is a bug somewhere in the code.

I added a scaling curve to hullpoints as an incentive to get people to purchase special options and weapons to make cool vehicles.

Then your system is wrong because it gives the wrong point cost to vehicles that don't take "enough" special options and weapons to be "cool" by your standard.

Your entire argument is as follows

Games workshop can't ever be right.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that sometimes games workshop can be right.
The vdr that Lyth made has to be wrong for my original assertion to be right.
I cannot be wrong.
The vdr made by Lyth has to be wrong.

No, that is not my argument at all. Please don't waste time posting absurd straw man arguments. My actual argument is this:

The VDR that you made produces incorrect results.
The VDR that you made uses fixed prices for things that have variable value, which guarantees that at least some of the units you design with your VDR will have incorrect point costs.
Therefore your VDR is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.

And then there's a separate argument about how you try to apply your rules to GW's rules:
GW does not use a VDR-style system to determine their point costs.
Therefore any claim by you to have reverse-engineered GW's points and found them to be appropriate can not be correct.

If you believe what I said about my math will not change to please you (and it won't) and you believe it will never be right (which you will) then you have nothing further to add to the discussion here. Feel free to continue to comment, but I will not be browbeaten until you fall back in love with games workshop.

So you'd rather make absurd arguments about "GW haters" than admit that your system is wrong and improve it? It's really sad that you have to resort to this.

Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

The vdr by lyth shows this may be possible. Lyth recognises that GW is capable of being wrong, and adjusts prices accordingly.

I did not go into the process with the revenant in mind. The shadowsword was my baseline for large blast strength D. When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This had nothing to do with my ego, you aren't trying to make my system work or be more accurate, you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work. At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, wraithknight doesn't pay the points to be gargantuan. It is 100 points undercosted.

The bane blade is 30 points too expensive, the shadowsword is 80 but only if playing on a normal sized table.

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This never happens in real games. Please stop bringing up the ridiculous straw man of room-sized games played with no terrain as justification for crippling a unit on a normal table.

This had nothing to do with my ego

No, it's entirely about your ego. You're refusing to acknowledge legitimate problems because it would require admitting that your VDR system is broken. If it isn't about your ego then tell me this: are you willing to admit, if you are shown evidence that it is true, that your system is not only broken, but broken in fundamental ways that guarantee that it will never work?

you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work.

An effort which is significantly aided by the fact that your system doesn't work.

At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".

IOW, "my system is right and any criticism of it is not constructive".

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

No it didn't. GW did not assign its point cost that way. The fact that you've declared that it pays a certain amount for each component doesn't make it true.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Here's your entire argument Lyth.

Games workshop has a standardized system to assign points values.
The vdr that Lyth made shows that this is so.
Games Workshop's math must be right or else Lyth's VDR would be wrong.
Lyth cannot be wrong.
Therefore GW's points costs are right.
Therefore Lyth's VDR cannot be wrong.

The vdr by lyth shows this may be possible. Lyth recognises that GW is capable of being wrong, and adjusts prices accordingly.

I did not go into the process with the revenant in mind. The shadowsword was my baseline for large blast strength D. When the one blast is able to hit someone on average 5 TURNS before it can retaliate that weapon should pay for it.

This had nothing to do with my ego, you aren't trying to make my system work or be more accurate, you are simply trying to make me not do it by proving it can't work. At that point I don't need to hear what you say because it isn't constructive. Hence the "do it yourself".

Also, wraithknight doesn't pay the points to be gargantuan. It is 100 points undercosted.

The bane blade is 30 points too expensive, the shadowsword is 80 but only if playing on a normal sized table.

The revenant pays 120 points MORE than a superheavy does to be a flyer. That is a lot of points. It pays the same for av as a waveserpents. It pays the same for hullpoints as a baneblade. It pays double for EACH gun that a shadowsword does on a normal table. It pays 100 points for the ability to not be blown away by massed strength 6-7 because otherwis the unit would be absolute garbage. That is how points work.

Man alive, this is the thread that keeps on giving...

vdr by lyth only proves that a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut, and that an infinite number of monkeys given an infininite amount of time can eventually write a sonnet. However, getting lucky on a single point out of pure, blind luck does not validate a ruleset that is demonstrably flawed in pretty much every conceivable way. What lyth needs to recognize is that lyth is frequently wrong and has no fething clue what lyth is doing, because lyth is largely incompetent both as a designer and as a project manager, and that lyth deserves the sort of criticism that lyth is receiving because of the laughably defensive and personal way that takes that criticism. lyth should recognize that people are criticising lyth's vdr as sport, because of the sheer petulance and defensiveness that lyth displays when even slightly provoked. If lyth cannot recognize that lyth is the joke, more's the pity.

when lyth states that lyth did not go in with the revenant, it is at odds with lyth's grandiose statements that "Starting with the revenant titan. While the thing is very synergistic in and of itself, it isn't actually undercosted!". lyth also completely overvalues range, imagining that lyth's reference Shadowsword was designed and costed for floor battles, yet completely missing things like DSing meltavets / combimeltatermies / and similar units that insta-nuke a Shadowsword.

lyth claiming the Shadowsword gets 5 turns? SS range is 120", Pulsar is 60", moves 36". At best, the Shadowsword gets 1 shot off, with a 1/2 hit that 1/2 gets past holofield and 1/6 hits for 6+d6 doing 3+ HP 2/3 of the time - net odds: 2% chance for the SS to one-shot the Revenant. After that, the Revenant drops 4 large blasts on the Shadowsword for 3 hits (being generous to the Shadowsword), with a 1/3 chance of getting a "6" insta-kills the SS; however the average damage for those 3 hits still does 8.7 hull points, so all it takes is one more glance to delete the Shadowsword; if the Revenant gets all 4 hits, bye-bye Shadowsword. And that's on the floor.

lyth claiming that this isn't ego is the biggest lie that lyth has posted. both of lyth's threads clearly are masturbatory exercises to lyths' ego. and lyth now expecting people to help lyth "make it work?" trolololol. lyth's system is fundamentally broken, from the way that it costs micro-units, to the way that it assigns points to weapon options, to the way that it costs wargear, to the way that it modifies weapons. lyth should understand that the system is not fixable, because it cannot capture the way that 40k units actually work on the battlefield, and all of the complexity simply creates more loopholes and contradictions for others to exploit. lyth simply does not comprehend why Jervis never bothered updating GW's VDR - because they cannot ever be "fair".

lyth doubles down that the shadowsword being fairly costed! except when it's played the way that everybody else plays 40k.

and lyth further commits on the revenant being fairly costed as well, still adamant that the collective is wrong and lyth is right!


Guys, gotta say, it feels good to be back in, simply for the entertainment value.

Show me. Show me a way in which my vdr cannot build a vehicle usable in warhammer 40k. Besides the lack of a lowest point total allowed, what is so intrinsically wrong that it doesn't let the user make a unit that would be viable on the table and couldn't possibly be fixed.

Show me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the revenant pays 160 EXTRA POINTS ABOVE what its weapons cost to be able to close that distance and is DOUBLE what the shadowsword costs. So yes, one on one the revenant damn well better be able to kill a shadowsword.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Show me. Show me a way in which my vdr cannot build a vehicle usable in warhammer 40k.

Nice job moving the goalposts. A vehicle with 1 HP, AV 1/1/1, and no weapons or special abilities of any kind is playable in 40k, even if it costs 500 points. It won't break any rules and the game will function just fine. Obviously it's a terrible unit and taking it will significantly hurt your chances of winning, but you can still use it if you really want.

The actual criticism of your system is that it produces results that are clearly inaccurate, and its approach is broken in fundamental ways that guarantee it will do so.

Besides the lack of a lowest point total allowed, what is so intrinsically wrong that it doesn't let the user make a unit that would be viable on the table and couldn't possibly be fixed.

Show me.

I've already showed you, several times, what is wrong with your system: fixed prices for things with variable values.

Also, nice job moving the goalposts again. Why should we set the threshold for failure at "can't possibly be fixed"? Any system, no matter how bad, succeeds under that standard since you can always just fix the costs it produces.

Also, the revenant pays 160 EXTRA POINTS ABOVE what its weapons cost to be able to close that distance and is DOUBLE what the shadowsword costs.

{citation needed}

The only source for the price of the Revenant's weapons is your arbitrary choice. Please stop repeating this myth that it pays a specific price for its movement speed.

I say it pays that price because I am certain of the other point totals paid for what it brings to the table.

I have said already that the rules I have set allow for the implementation of static numbers for upgrades based on a system of diminishing returns on your investment for superheavy hullpoints. I am sure people can make inefficient vehicles with this system. I am sure they can go the other way also and make truely epic monsters and tanks with this system. What they won't do is break the game.

I wasn't moving goalposts. Perigrin said if I was shown how my system is so broken it can't ever work would I accept it. I am asking him to show me that situation.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I say it pays that price because I am certain of the other point totals paid for what it brings to the table.

But we've already established that you're wrong about at least some of those point totals (for example, its guns are not worth the same as the Shadowsword's gun). You can be as certain as you want, but you're still wrong.

I have said already that the rules I have set allow for the implementation of static numbers for upgrades based on a system of diminishing returns on your investment for superheavy hullpoints.

You said it, but you were wrong when you said it then and you're wrong when you say it now. This approach does not work because building the upgrade cost into the HP costs requires you to take the exact amount of upgrades you were expecting. If you don't use enough upgrades then you've overpaid for your vehicle because its HP cost assumes that you were going to buy more stuff. If you use too many upgrades then you've underpaid for your vehicle because the "hidden" price in the HP cost didn't cover that many upgrades.

And besides the fact that it doesn't work I have no idea why you'd even want to try it in the first place. Why not just price the HP according to their value and then price the upgrades based on their added value (fixed price for static value, percentage-based price for variable value)? The only reason not to do it that way seems to be that it would require you to admit that your system was wrong, and that your supposed reverse-engineered point costs for GW units were not accurate.

I am sure people can make inefficient vehicles with this system. I am sure they can go the other way also and make truely epic monsters and tanks with this system.

Then your system is wrong.

I wasn't moving goalposts. Perigrin said if I was shown how my system is so broken it can't ever work would I accept it. I am asking him to show me that situation.

And "broken" means "produces inaccurate results", not "produces a vehicle that is literally impossible to use in 40k". You're moving the goalposts because you tried to insist that I produce a vehicle that is unplayable, not merely inaccurately priced.

I can tell you a problem with your system straight away: You can't legally make Leman Russes. And if you make a Vanquisher with this system it costs 25 more points than the Codex variant with just an extra hhull point for it's trouble.

Ok, I've done what you said and adjusted the point totals to reflect what you want. Baneblade is overpriced by 40 points and suffers from a lack of synergy based on the range discrepancy of its primary weapons. Revenant is 30 points too cheap. With a system of paying 50% or 100 points plus 10 for each additional hullpoint. I am going to stick with the latter because otherwise the phantom titan would be about 100 points too cheap.

Look under the "tank" descriptor for type. That give you your extra weapon without the extra hullpoint. Remember imperials get it for free.

Sorry I was being pig headed about the switch. You guys came off as abrasive and it out me on the defensive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, in the last chart of the system you will see a section for codex specific upgrades. That lets you add the heavy stubber and hunter killer missile without breaking the basic design rules.

With the percentage based invul saves the heirophant actually ends up 40 points too expensive as opposed to 90. (The extra points lost remains the overpriced biocannons tyranid gmc's have to lug around)

Ok. If you're accepting corrections now then I'll give you a better starting point. It's still going to have problems with variable values not being represented appropriately, but it should at least remove the most obvious issues. It's a new process:

Offense:

1) Decide on a vehicle role (long-range support, etc). This will adjust the point costs of various things. There is a generic "combat" role with no point adjustments. It does depend on the creator being honest about their role choice, but it should be obvious that the role is appropriate. If you can't convince your fellow players that your role choice matches the design then you take the generic role.

2) Choose weapons. Each weapon has a price depending on the vehicle role. For example, a melta gun costs less on a long-range vehicle than on a short-range vehicle since you won't get to use it as often.

3) Multiply each weapon's cost by any weapon-specific special rules it has (ordnance, likely to be snap-shooting because of other ordnance, can charge additional targets, etc).

4) Multiply each weapon's cost by a BS factor. Blast weapons have a lower multiplier since BS is much less relevant, and template weapons have no multiplier. Twin-linking a weapon and similar abilities are included here, as an additional multiplier that is applied after the BS adjustment.

5) Multiply each weapon's cost by an arc factor (90* sponson, 180* sponson, hull, turret, etc).

6) Add the value of any offensive abilities that don't have a weapon stat line.

7) Add up all of this. Now you have the total offense of the vehicle.

Defense:

1) Choose AV for each facing. This will give you the base defensive multiplier.

2) Choose how many HP, and multiply the AV multiplier by the per-HP cost.

3) Multiply the previous value by a value for each defensive ability. Defensive abilities that stack (for example, a 4++ and a holofield) are multiplied one after the other. The value of this depends on how much additional protection the ability gives. A holofield is a flat 50% damage reduction, so it has a 2x multiplier. A 4++ provides 50% damage reduction but does not stack with other saves, so it might have a 1.8x multiplier.

4) Multiply the final offensive value by your total defense value. This is the total value of the vehicle.

Other:

1) Multiply the total vehicle value by any bonuses or penalties for miscellaneous rules (the Superheavy or Fast types, being a flyer or skimmer, etc).

Final Check:

1) Check that each vehicle meets the following conditions: a normal vehicle has at least 2 HP and costs at least 30 points, a superheavy vehicle has at least 6 HP and costs at least 200 points.


EXAMPLE WITH COMPLETELY ARBITRARY NUMBERS:

I make the Peregrine battle tank. It's an awesome model with a quad laser turret and a hull-mounted flamer. It's also a skimmer.

Offense:

1) Since this is a long-range support tank I choose the long-range role.

2) I choose to represent its quad laser turret as two twin-linked lascannons. I pay the full 20 points each for the lascannons, but I only pay half the usual 5 point cost for the flamer since I will rarely get to use it.

3) No special rules, no change.

4) I suck at life, so I don't think I should get better than BS 2. My lascannons get a 0.75x multiplier for below-average BS and are 15 points, my flamer remains 2.5 points. However, my lascannons are TL so they get a 1.5x multiplier and finally end up at 22.5 points each.

5) The flamer is hull-mounted, so no change. The lascannons are turret-mounted so they get a 1.5x multiplier, and are 33.75 points each.

6) No other abilities, no change.

7) Total price is 33.75x2 + 2.5 = 70 points.

Defensive:

1) I choose 12/11/11 for my AV. This is worth 0.25 points.

2) It's a normal vehicle, so 3 HP. Stat line is now worth 0.75 points.

3) My tank has awesome electronic warfare, so let's give it holofields. That's a 2x multiplier, which brings us to 1.5 points.

4) We multiply the firepower of the tank (70 points) by the defense protecting that firepower (1.5) and get a total of 105 points.

Other:

1) It's a fast skimmer, so we apply the skimmer (1.1x) and fast (1.2x) multipliers to get 138.6 points. Round up to 139 points.

Check:

1) It's a normal vehicle at 139 points, so it's legal.

The primary issue I see with this is the amounts f space the table will take up and the multiple multipliers causing vehicles to become too expensive.

If you want your tank to have a role, and are wanting the price of weapons to vary based on that role, why not just decide when you come up with the idea that you aren't going to add any short range guns to a long range tank? Why should a generalist unit pay more for a battle cannon than a ranged specific variant when it is already going to be better for the long ranged specific vehicle?

I'm sorry perigrin but what you are suggesting isn't at all user friendly and you said so yourself that it doesn't address the issues that you already have with the system. I would love for you to build on the idea and we can compare the two systems to each other when you get your first draft. But as it stands I don't think it will actually produce better results than the changes I am already making...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also worth noting that in the above example only superheavy vehicles (and fortifications in my opinion) can have the holofields. Otherwise it is just another word for invulnerable saves for eldar units.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The primary issue I see with this is the amounts f space the table will take up

This is the digital age. Space for text is free.

and the multiple multipliers causing vehicles to become too expensive.

Huh? Multipliers don't cause vehicles to become too expensive because you have full control over what those multipliers are. If the end result is too expensive you figure out which multiplier(s) is (are) responsible for it and you reduce them. In fact, you can even have negative multipliers that make a vehicle cheaper.

If you want your tank to have a role, and are wanting the price of weapons to vary based on that role, why not just decide when you come up with the idea that you aren't going to add any short range guns to a long range tank?

Because of fluff. VDR-style systems are complete idiocy for competitive gaming, you can never make one that won't be exploitable and if the goal is just to make the vehicle that helps your chances of winning the most people will exploit your system. The only reason for VDR-style systems to exist is to give point costs to fluffy models you've come up with and let you put them on the table. And those units have mixed weapons because they have them in the fluff. A Basilisk has a heavy flamer even though it's worthless on the tabletop because the "real" Basilisk is armed with one as a backup plan. A functioning system has to handle these fluff-based designs appropriately, you can't just depend on "nobody would ever build something that inefficient".

Why should a generalist unit pay more for a battle cannon than a ranged specific variant when it is already going to be better for the long ranged specific vehicle?

You have that backwards. Specialist units pay less for weapons outside of their role, not their primary guns. The long-range tank pays full price for the battlecannon, and possibly even pays a few points more for it. However, it gets a discount on the flamer that it probably won't use very often. The idea is that you can take weapons/upgrades/etc that are present in the fluff but not very effective on the tabletop without having to pay full price for them or screwing up the price for those weapons/upgrades/etc on units that can use them effectively.

I'm sorry perigrin but what you are suggesting isn't at all user friendly

That's an inherent problem with VDR-style systems. A reasonably smart person would fix it by putting the whole mess into a spreadsheet or program so all of the math is hidden and the user just picks the options that apply to their vehicle.

and you said so yourself that it doesn't address the issues that you already have with the system.

No, I said that it doesn't completely fix those issues. It addresses them and comes a lot closer to the right answer than your system.

I would love for you to build on the idea and we can compare the two systems to each other when you get your first draft.

You'll be waiting a long time. I'm not going to waste my time refining a VDR-style system because I have no need for it. If I make any rules for 40k I'm going to use the same guess-playtest-refine cycle that GW (like WOTC, etc) uses. I'm just telling you how to get a better system if you insist on making VDR-style rules.

Actually, a Basilisk should have a HB (and spend the extra 5 pts on a PMHS), because:
1) it's a "FREE" weapon (actually 5+5 points);
2) they help with Weapon Destroyed, as 2/3 won't be the main gun;
3) if the main gun does get destroyed, it can tool around throwing 6 AP shots at 30-36" that nobody is going to care about.

That's under a Fluffy system in which units look good and are costed fairly.

However, under VDR, that same 10 points takes on a very different character. For +5 pts more, you can upgrade that HB or PMHS to a BS3 Vanquisher Cannon with 72" range and S8.

And that's the issue with (any) VDR in a nutshell. If you cost the guns correctly, the first thing you need to do is compare all of them based on pure utility. So that you don't have 20 pts for a 48" S9 AP2 Lascannon costing +33% more than a 15-pt 72" S8 AP2 Vanquisher Cannon.

Then, you have to address the BS, so that you don't have people taking 7 BS 3 Vanquisher Cannons for 3.5 hits per turn on their superheavies instead of 3 BS5 Vanquisher Cannons scoring only 2.5 hits per turn.

And that's just the Imperial Weapons table.

I was alerted to that discrepancy, and I am going to adjust accordingly. My original setup was to proof it against games workshop's points so people wouldn't be able to use it, find the points were off for the vehicle they made, and claim the system didn't work. A couple guns made it through the cracks when I started actually adjusting prices to show what they should be at.

You said you were lurking here for a while, you didn't notice I made the cannon in question 25 points base for bs3?

Also, peregrine, if the long range tank is paying slightly less for one weapon and slightly more for the other, wouldn't that equal out to the same point total as simply having them be a set price based on ballistic skill? Even if not the same, if it is within 4 or 5 points is it really going to matter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I don't like computers or spreadsheets. I prefer to use pencil and paper for my math whether it is a 13th age character or this system. Just personal preference. I also don't appreciate the "reasonably smart" jab. That was unwarranted.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Also, peregrine, if the long range tank is paying slightly less for one weapon and slightly more for the other, wouldn't that equal out to the same point total as simply having them be a set price based on ballistic skill?

If you have the right combination of weapons, sure. But the point is that you aren't guaranteed to have that combination. For example, if I leave the flamer off the example tank I posted then you can't count on the flamer balancing out the lascannons. You have to price each weapon without making any assumptions about what else the user is going to take.

But really, it just goes back to what I've been telling you about considering all possible units, not just ones in a certain narrow range that you think people will make. If your system can handle the unusual stuff then it's probably going to handle the normal units as well. But if you only build it to handle the normal units and overlook flaws in the method then you're going to run into problems when someone does make something weird. After all, making interesting new units is the whole point of a system like the VDR.

Even if not the same, if it is within 4 or 5 points is it really going to matter?

Maybe, maybe not. But the difference can potentially be more than 4-5 points. And remember, weapons were just the one easy example of role-dependent pricing I gave. Other things could vary significantly in role as well. For example, high rear AV is worth a lot more on an aggressive tank that has to get up close and risk getting hit on rear armor than on an artillery unit that spends the whole game with its back to the table edge. So a long-range tank might get a discount on rear AV, while a short-range tank might pay a little more for it. On the other hand, a short-range tank might get a point reduction for suffering the Heavy type because it makes it much harder to get into range, while the long-range tank might get a point increase because the movement penalty rarely applies while shooting the extra weapons is a significant bonus.

Add up all of the role-dependent values and you could easily get into the range where people make epic hate threads about a unit that is too expensive or too cheap by that much.

Also, I don't like computers or spreadsheets. I prefer to use pencil and paper for my math whether it is a 13th age character or this system. Just personal preference.

Then you're screwed. You can't pretend that it's 1980 and expect to make a successful VDR-style system. Even the original VDR would be an obnoxious waste of time if not for the fact that someone made a digital version that does all of the math for you.

 Peregrine wrote:


Maybe, maybe not. But the difference can potentially be more than 4-5 points. And remember, weapons were just the one easy example of role-dependent pricing I gave. Other things could vary significantly in role as well. For example, high rear AV is worth a lot more on an aggressive tank that has to get up close and risk getting hit on rear armor than on an artillery unit that spends the whole game with its back to the table edge. So a long-range tank might get a discount on rear AV, while a short-range tank might pay a little more for it. On the other hand, a short-range tank might get a point reduction for suffering the Heavy type because it makes it much harder to get into range, while the long-range tank might get a point increase because the movement penalty rarely applies while shooting the extra weapons is a significant bonus.

Add up all of the role-dependent values and you could easily get into the range where people make epic hate threads about a unit that is too expensive or too cheap by that much.

Another role-dependent thing might be melta on fast tank-hunter vehicles.
Eg a Piranha. The combination of Fusion Blaster + Fast Skimmer => Get in opponent's rear arcs really easily, adds a multiplier to the cost that wouldn't be there for Fusion Blaster + Slow Tank or Burst Cannon + Fast Skimmer.

But the issue I am seeing is why give them a points break on things that don't fit with their theme? Close quarters tank would take higher rear armor, long range tank won't. And if I give the long range tank a significant points reduction on shorter range guns and rear armor suddenly it is a long range cannon that doubles as an effective short range counter assault vehicle.

The balance for the short range tank hunter with meltaguns is the threat posed to the vehicle by needing to be that close to begin with. That has always been the case.

If a short range tank is paying more for both protection on the rear armor and possible more for the short range guns it carries, then it will actually become more and more inefficient in points the more specialised it becomes. If that is seen to be the case, then everyone will just use the generic vehicle option. If everyone realises that, then the huge pile of extra work you are asking me to do is completely wasted. I dont like the idea of making things nobody will want to use...

Vehicle theme:

Long Range:
Weap1.....x pts
Weap2.....X pts

Mid Range:
Weap3.....x pts
Weap4.....x pts

Short Range:
Weap5......x pts
Weap6......x pts

If you wish to take a weapon from another table to the one of your theme, add x% points to that weapon.

Aaaand, done.

Or, I could simply let them make things that aren't synergistic without penalising them for it...

What would you consider an imperial knight to be as a roll? How about a dreadnaught? Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?

How about the baneblade? If 24" is short or medium range you are actually asking me to make it pay MORE than it is now because of the demolisher cannon.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

You know what you want, but I don't think you are seeing all of the ramifications of what you're asking me to do. What percentage should I charge? When you are talking about a percentage, you do realise how small that number is going to be based on the minute amount of points each gun costs, especially the short range/ small arms type weapons.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?

The issue is not 5 points. The issue is being off by 50+, 100+ pts value in these larger units.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But the issue I am seeing is why give them a points break on things that don't fit with their theme?

Because those things aren't very effective. A hull flamer on a Basilisk that never leaves the corner of the table is worth much less than a hull flamer on a Hellhound that spends the whole game within template range. So if you have a single price for a flamer then at least one of those tanks is going to have the wrong point cost.

And if I give the long range tank a significant points reduction on shorter range guns and rear armor suddenly it is a long range cannon that doubles as an effective short range counter assault vehicle.

And at that point you've invoked the "if you can't convince your opponent that your role is accurate then you don't get the role" rule. A Basilisk with a bunch of melta guns added "just in case" is no longer a pure long-range support unit and pays the standard generic-role price for everything. The point is not to be able to choose whichever role gives you the best deal, it's so that you can design fluff-driven units without overpaying for upgrades that have minimal value on the tabletop. If you try stupid stuff like labeling a Hellhound a "long range artillery unit" to get cheaper prices for template weapons then your opponent is just going to tell you to stop being TFG and pay the default price.

The balance for the short range tank hunter with meltaguns is the threat posed to the vehicle by needing to be that close to begin with.

Again, you keep getting this backwards. The role-dependent prices are not about the unit's primary weapons. They're about not overpaying or underpaying for secondary weapons or support abilities that fall outside of the primary role. You don't want a situation where you have an awesome WWII artillery tank model with a machine gun as a secondary weapon (because the real WWII tank had one) but you feel like you can't put that machine gun in the 40k rules because you don't want to overpay for a rule that is only added to stay WYSIWYG and has minimal value in the tabletop game.

If that is seen to be the case, then everyone will just use the generic vehicle option.

Well yes, that's the whole point! Most vehicles should be generic because that's how they function in 40k. The point of acknowledging different roles is that specialist vehicles do exist, even if they're less common, and a good system has to be able to handle them appropriately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?

Again, you have that backwards. If anything the dread would pay less for the lascannon because it expects to spend multiple turns locked in combat and unable to shoot.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

...

Have you even been reading what I said about the roles? The Basilisk would probably end up cheaper under the role system than under your existing rules because it would no longer pay full price for the hull gun it will rarely use. It may or may not end up cheaper than the GW version because GW doesn't use a VDR-style system and may have already accounted for the inability to use the hull gun effectively (among other potential sources of cost differences).

What percentage should I charge?

You figure it out, just like you figure out the component prices for everything else.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?

Because the only reason for having a VDR-style system is to get as close as possible to the correct price for a new unit. If you're accepting that you're going to get the wrong answer then you might as well just do what everyone else does and use the iterative playtesting approach to determine the cost.

I've already accepted the lower points per hullpoint on superheavies to eliminate that issue. Making things pay extra for gear that doesn't fit their theme will actually cause MORE issues with those units because of the swing in points that will bring. Lord of skulls works out alomst exactly with the system I have now. What point percentage should I ADD to his CURRENT cost to make up for his versatility? Do you see what this idea ACTUALLY does to generalist units like him and the imperial knight? As if they weren't trying to overcome their inherent synergy issues already you guys want them to actually pay MORE for what they have. And if you are dropping the price on one weapon system or another to compensate then you really aren't doing anything but creating an artificial problem you feel needs addressed. Because the idea of the long ranged wraithknight (being specialised and all) actually being worth what he is and the imperial knight being priced higher scares the hell out of me.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Or, I could simply let them make things that aren't synergistic without penalising them for it...
You are aware that "x" as a numerical value can be negative when needed, right?

What would ou consider an imperial knight to be as a roll? How about a dreadnaught? Should a dreadnaught pay more for a las cannon than a predator because it has a melee weapon?
If it took a D-sword, melee. If it didn't, long ranged.

How about the baneblade? If 24" is short or medium range you are actually asking me to make it pay MORE than it is now because of the demolisher cannon.
Medium, including the HB and Demo cannons. And I am not setting costs here. Quite frankly, I think most of your costings are skewed waay too far in one direction or the other. Dear lord.

Or the basilisk, if I make it pay more for the heavy flamer because it is short range, or the heavy bolter for being medium range, who would use a more expensive version of that vehicle?

You know what you want, but I don't think you are seeing all of the ramifications of what you're asking me to do. What percentage should I charge? When you are talking about a percentage, you do realise how small that number is going to be based on the minute amount of points each gun costs, especially the short range/ small arms type weapons.
Hey, I'm just giving an idea of how to implement a way of accounting for weapon synergy, not do your work for you.

Why not let them be 5-10 points over/undercosted as an acceptable area of imbalance to allow people to feel like they made something potent, but not so powerful as to break the game itself?
Because it regularly escapes you that margins of imbalance quickly run into the hundreds of points in your system.

The most ridiculous thing is that there is no intelligent baseline for weapon costs. If his system worked the way it's supposed to, I should be able to build any weapon into any other weapon within +/- 10% after rounding by +/- 5 points. That is the bare minimum for a functional system, because it means that mathematically all of the offense traits are consistent. If he can't even do that for the BS3 Imperial core, how can anyone expect it works as the system scales up?

And no, changing the number of one weapon option does not fix the system.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I've already accepted the lower points per hullpoint on superheavies to eliminate that issue.

This has nothing to do with superheavy HP prices. The Basilisk, the unit I'm using as an example, is not a superheavy.

Making things pay extra for gear that doesn't fit their theme will actually cause MORE issues with those units because of the swing in points that will bring.

Please go back and read what I've been telling you before discussing this anymore. Units pay LESS for gear that doesn't fit their theme, not more.

Read what others are posting perigrin, sometimes I answer them too.

Salym, the baneblade cannon reaches from one end of the table to another. To insinuate that is is a medium range weapon would mean that things like lascannons and railguns arent long range. That is absurd. And IF you consider the baneblade medium range then you were suggesting it pay MORE for the giant long range cannon on top. Making it MORE expensive than it's current price point.

The weapon upgrades are never going to be able to equal out between weapons, they just give you a way to fudge weapons to fit a theme you may want. I am looking at ways to balance them more correctly, such as the long barrel upgrade being a 20% increase but giving an extra foot of distance. That equals out to every purchase of that bonus you have one more turn where your opponent will be in range to cause damage to them based on table size. Other things such as blast are going to be directly related to the size of the minimum area damage between the different sizes. (Normal base size for single shot weapons, then three inch, then 5 etc) so the points spent equal out to the extra area covered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the basilisk is about 40 points too expensive to put on a normal sized table. It pays too much for excessive range, just like other similarly ranged weapons in the game. It has nothing to do with the +/- 5 points for the heavy bolter.