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.

I agree you need to try and break the system for proper playtesting, but also mistakes will happen when a system changes so much over a short amount of time.

Also, being rude doesn't make for a very good environment for testing or improving anything. It just makes the critic an a-hole, and causes the creator to dig in his/her heels. Do I think there are some very valid criticisms about this system? Yes. Doesn't give you a reason to be a complete d-bag about it. I would be really surprised if any of you actually talked to people in the real world the way you talk to them here. If you do, then sooner or later you will probably piss off the wrong person sometime. The town I grew up in had someone who talked like the way you guys do to people. He said something to the wrong wackjob. He now resides 6 feet under. It is something I try and keep in mind whenever I deal with or have a conversation with anyone. How unstable is the person I am talking to.

I know it is a pain in the butt, but a more battletech(ish) approach might be better with a BV 2.0 like system might be better. Even though the math there can make my brain hurt at times. Calculator definitely recommended.

Granted that system has it's flaws as well. Quite easy to make a broken as crap light mech that can destroy a 100 ton behemoth. And Lyth try not to get too stuck on the rudeness and abrasive attitudes of some of these people. Some have some good ideas once you get past their apparent complete lack of manners and social graces. Others are just people who like to tear things down to make themselves feel better.

Well said Norse.
It's suddenly gotten very heated, and with the issues on either side that won't help anything.

 McNinja wrote:
Let me get this straight - for the Tau, a monstrous creature cannot have a heavy burst cannon... yet the riptide is a monstrous creature and is currently the only model that can take it in official game material. What?

Of course, it's still possible to create broken tau stuff regardless, but that really doesn't make sense. Disallowing heavy railguns from MCs and GCs also does not make sense since the new tau suit from FW came out and is a GC... I like what you tried to do, but you need to write in an exception for Tau because battlesuits are creatures, not vehicles.

Furthermore, you forgot to add rail rifles to the tau list.

Derp! I was adding those in at the same time as other superheavy level weapons. I am so sorry about that. The only superheavy weapon in the tau list should be the heavy railguns (strength D version)

Edit:also, the underlined weapons are available to gargantuan creatures as well. I apparently didn't put them in that particular list...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

I can't speak for others, but my absence was do to personal reasons. I am trying to get back into the game, but I am having difficulties doing so after losing a portion of my army to a small house fire.

Sorry to hear that! What army was it, I may have some lying around...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Let me get this straight - for the Tau, a monstrous creature cannot have a heavy burst cannon... yet the riptide is a monstrous creature and is currently the only model that can take it in official game material. What?

Of course, it's still possible to create broken tau stuff regardless, but that really doesn't make sense. Disallowing heavy railguns from MCs and GCs also does not make sense since the new tau suit from FW came out and is a GC... I like what you tried to do, but you need to write in an exception for Tau because battlesuits are creatures, not vehicles.

Furthermore, you forgot to add rail rifles to the tau list.

Derp! I was adding those in at the same time as other superheavy level weapons. I am so sorry about that. The only superheavy weapon in the tau list should be the heavy railguns (strength D version)

Edit:also, the underlined weapons are available to gargantuan creatures as well. I apparently didn't put them in that particular list...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I admit that after the first couple editions most of the people who were picking this thing appart went quiet. I tried to address the issues they presented, they didn't comment again, I assumed they didn't find anything else to look at. I then went on expanding the options waiting for more feedback.

Tomorrow I'll be able to give more, and better, feedback, been studying for about 8 hours with a huge exam in the morning... So far I think this whole thing is really cool, even if you can make some clearly broken gak, showing a little restraint allows for some pretty cool things!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Sorry to hear that! What army was it, I may have some lying around...

I play Iron Hands, but don't worry about it. The portion that went up were models I weren't using much or I needed to redo in some way which is why they are in boxes. I was planning on taking my army in a new direction anyway, and I see it as more of an opportunity to do so. Once I get some more critical things taken care of, I hope to start collecting and building again. The new codex is the thing that has really stopped me the most. I need to buy a bunch of rhino/razorback kits for the gladius strikeforce and right now I just don't have the time and money. I will have it sooner or later but it is kinda depressing. A lot harder to get games in these days anyway now that the local gaming store is closed up. But thank you for the offer.

I am also thinking about starting a IK or Ad mech/Skitarii army. Which is another problem cant decide fully what I want to do lol.

I am honestly getting fed up with my Iron Hands. Well more of GW with their eradicating anything unique about the IH. The nerfs getting old too. Dreads are better, but overall I got a big nerf and I don't enjoy being pretty much forced to play bikes....

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Considering all I am doing is updating an old system, I figured I didn't need to write out why it exists since it would be the exact same reason the old one existed. To give a (somewhat) accurate point value to cool models people have or want to make. I said later as to why some things went unnoticed, primarily that those who were really taking this thing appart went quiet. Then there are those who had no feedback, they simply said something snarky, felt proud of their accomplishment, and never came back when I asked them to explain.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

Jesus christ dude calm the feth down, it's just a game.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
To give a (somewhat) accurate point value to cool models people have or want to make.

Which is a fine goal. You wouldn't get nearly as much criticism if you'd stick to "it will give you a crude approximation of your unit's value" and stop trying to use your numbers to "prove" that GW's point costs are reasonable or accurate.

But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.

Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It is my project, I can and will make decisions about what you guys bring to me as suggestions, and I see why games workshop doesn't come to people for advice on what units should be statistically.
'Cause the dev team would break down in tears as we spend weeks teaching them mathematics.

That is really unfair, because GW does math far better than lyth does. GW has yet to publish a negative points unit, for example.

Inadvertently gave the option to. Also, their own vdr allowed for even LOWER numbers. But thanks for assuming my failure to identify that issue is simply me being unable to calculate effectively.

Sure, no problem. Because that's among the less damning flaws that you might have admitted. If it's not just a failure of basic math, then it's a demonstrated failure of having any rigor in your 9 months testing process, along with a failed ability to select competent playtesters. If you have no concept of how to test or evaluate a test that is done, well, that's pretty shameful. You don't even have a set of design principles that specify what you're trying to do, so of course there's no way to validate it.

There is some serious snark in here.

Wow.

Lyth I will admit I haven't put a whole lot of time into trying to break this system. I'll hop on it as soon as I can and list any holes I find.

Btw, I know its tough trying to make stuff like this. I have had the same issues (although not as bad as they are right now) with my Imperial Codex.

Don't get discouraged or upset, just try to fix whatever problems pop up and make it better.


You can do it buddy

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

 McNinja wrote:
Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

The avenger gattling cannon in the vdr is the one from the dark angels flyer/forge world avenger and is only heavy 6. I will add the double fire one from the warden to the list, basically giving the current one speed loader, that would put it at 100 points. Which is why the double gun version would be more expensive than the melee/shooty versions.

The upgraded heavy burst cannon would be terrifying, but only to flyers and skimmers. Interceptor no longer allows a skyfire weapon to fire at normal bs versus ground targets. Two of those at 200 points on a gargantuan creature of that caliber is more than enough AA for most any game


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

Did you mean revenant in the first example? (The wraithknight is 100 points too cheap, discovered that when I made the monstrous creature builder)

Also, if they do use a base system and I can get close to what they have, then I can pick out the outliers and show where games workshop changed their point totals to sell models (or whatever their reasons are)

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
But even if crude, the approximation of points shows there isn't as large a power curve for things like the revenant as has been postulated by the community at large. (IMO) that is all that I am saying.
Except that we've already established that playtesting gives a more accurate result than a VDR, and playtesting has determined just how powerful a WK actually is.

Also, someone asked at open day as to whether or not they have playtesters (they do) and if they have a standard point system they work with (the answer is "yes, but it isn't set in stone.") Which may be why things like the battle cannon seem to be priced the same on defilers, leman Russ, and vengeance weapons batteries, but the wraithknight and ta'unar seem to not pay for the privilege of being gargantuan creatures. They will fudge numbers on impulse for whatever reason they need to do so.
Which is why you cannot use a VDR to prove anything about GW-made units...

Did you mean revenant in the first example? (The wraithknight is 100 points too cheap, discovered that when I made the monstrous creature builder)

Also, if they do use a base system and I can get close to what they have, then I can pick out the outliers and show where games workshop changed their point totals to sell models (or whatever their reasons are)

Yea, I meant Revenant. And didn't we spend several pages proving that GW very clearly does not use a design ruleset?

I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks. Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner. It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.
Aside from GW being a poor judge and potential liar, a "base pricing guide" in no way alludes to any mathematical formulae. I might have a base guide on how to build a car, but that doesn't mean I put more than 10 seconds thought into it - simply "get box, attach wheels, attach engine". The most mathematical thing they likely do is look at a CSM and think to themselves "how can we make this blatantly more inefficient than a normal SM?".

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks.
It really doesn't. When we playtest things like the Revenant or WK, we naturally know its overpowered, because it wiped the board without effort. We don't need a VDR to tell us that.

Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner.
If I taught someone to play 40k, and only showed them the values of a SM unit, they would not notice that points are unrelated to performance. It is through testing and then statistical extrapolation in comparison to other units/codexes that we come to this conclusion. This first thought of anyone in a points-based system is "well they have point values, so more points = more better".

It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."
Erm. What. If a unit seems fine as/is, that justifies basing the formulas around that unit, not refuting the use of formulas...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I was going with the fact that someone asked in open forum at the games workshop open day yesterday if they had a base pricing guide. They said yes they do, but it isn't written in stone. That shows me that the presence of a mathematical system for tallying point totals is well within the realm of possibility. They just have the right to change things whenever they feel like it because they are the ultimate judge of how their game is played.

It would actually help explain why people are so quickly able to point out when things are over/underpowered from singular rules leaks. Humans recognise patterns instinctively, so when they see the stat line of a unit and the weapons profile they notice when it doesn't seem to correlate to the point total in the corner. It is also the primary reason I think some people hate formations. Their instincts tell them that "these units all seem fine in regards to points, changing them by putting them in a group shouldn't give them more than what they would normally get."

I think you're just putting far too much stock in the idea that they may have a system. Who cares if they do or they don't, WE know from actually playing the game that some things are wildly mispriced so what does it matter if GW use a purely mathematical system, a purely play testing system or a mix of the two? Whatever they use sucks, we know this already.

I doubt they just plonk the model down without taking a guess at the points first, and the "system" for doing that could just be a complex algorithm or it could be a fething dart board for all it matters

A large part of the reason you've been getting flak for your system is because you've tried to use the system to argue things like the Revenant and Baneblade are balanced (when we clearly know one is overpowered and the other underpowered and even a cursory glance at the stats shows that) AND you use the circular argument of "I calculated it so therefore it must be right" and being very stubborn about how the assumptions you based those calculations on could be fundamentally wrong.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 McNinja wrote:
Heavy Burst Cannon is S6 AP4 Heavy 8. According to these rules, a Heavy Burst Cannon that is Heavy 8 Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, and Interceptor is 100 points (rounded up from 99)

I don't find that absurd, to be honest. For 100 points in an apocalypse game, that's a really good weapon and creates a 36" radius deadzone where vehicles are remiss to venture.

Although on a T9 2+ save 10W tau suit, that's not much. And, of course, it needs at least two.


However, despite costing more, the same additions to the avenger gatling cannon would make the thing absolutely insane. Sub armorbane for speed loader and despite the cost 24 rending shots will down a flyer a turn.

Lastly, which version of the avenger gatling cannon are you using? Because if you're using the Imperial Knight Avenger Gatling Cannon, the base cost for it is too low. It is literally 3 times as good as the assault cannon, and should be 3x the cost.

Also, Im assuming the cost of the rail rifle is that of the ion rifle

The avenger gattling cannon in the vdr is the one from the dark angels flyer/forge world avenger and is only heavy 6. I will add the double fire one from the warden to the list, basically giving the current one speed loader, that would put it at 100 points. Which is why the double gun version would be more expensive than the melee/shooty versions.

The upgraded heavy burst cannon would be terrifying, but only to flyers and skimmers. Interceptor no longer allows a skyfire weapon to fire at normal bs versus ground targets. Two of those at 200 points on a gargantuan creature of that caliber is more than enough AA for most any game

Ok, just making sure. There's so many weapons that sound almost identical...

Dark Angels have the Avenger BOLT Cannon (Heavy 6, no rending)
Imperial Knights have the Avenger GATLING Cannon (AP3, Heavy 12, Rending)
For a while the big one was solely the Vulcan Mega Bolter (AP3, Heavy 15, can fire twice)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tau OP battlesuit aka bigger riptide - 1830 points (so far)

If modeled, this thing would be bigger than the new Ta'Unar or Stormsurge. I'm not sure which one is bigger, but this would be larger than both.

WS3 BS4 S8 T10 W9 I2 A2 Ld9 Sv2+
GC

Comes stocked with...
1 High Yield Armor Piercing Missile Pod (mounted on back)
R: 72" S7 AP4 Heavy 4, Twin-linked, Armorbane, Skyfire, Interceptor
2 Heavy Railguns (mounted on either side of the HYAPMP)
1 Heavy Ion Accelerator (Left Arm)
R: 60" S8 AP1 Heavy 6
R: 60 S9 AP1 Heavy 1, Massive Blast (7")
1 Heavy Burst Annihilator (the fun one, on the Right Arm)
R: 72" S10 AP1 Heavy 8, Armorbane

The burst annihilator is 638 by itself, maybe a little to much for a single weapon. However, if I'm following this correctly, you add all of the upgrades together. A normal railgun taking speed loader 8 times is actually cheaper than this weapon by about 300 points.

Something I noticed is that although it says you can only take 3 upgrades and 1 addition, it doesn't say anything about multiples of 1 upgrade, and the speed loader info implies that you can take 1 addition or 1 upgrade multiple times, but it only counts as one upgrade, otherwise part of the speed loader info doesn't make sense.

There is a column in the modification section labeled "multiple" that means you can take it more than once.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
There is a column in the modification section labeled "multiple" that means you can take it more than once.

I was just making sure I was doing it right lol. Looks like I am, so huzzah!

Lythrandire Biehrellian, I think I was one of those early critics. I honestly haven't followed the thread (although you've raised my ire every time you make a claim about points or balance in other threads).

Honestly I think what you're doing here is very cool. You should keep it up. It's nice to have a "just for fun" way to ballpark the points for a made-up unit among friends.

HOWEVER:

You need to stop making claims about what your math does not show. You ignore unique special rules because it's impossible to price them. This is a fundamental, fatal, and obvious flaw, if you think you're pricing things accurately (and this isn't the only flaw but I'm not getting into it because it really isn't important). You've found some interesting correlations in GW's point values and that's good enough for a casual VDR ruleset. Don't inflate your claims.

Along those lines, you need to stop making claims based on circular logic. Even if you did find the magic formula GW uses for pricing their units (because GW makes all the same mistakes you do, like ignoring special rules) that doesn't make it balanced. You seem to claim that your math is balanced because GW possibly uses it, and GW's units are balanced because they use math. None of those things follow from one another, they're baseless. This is circular logic.

GW's units don't seem to be balanced at all, so anything you derived from their point values would already be wrong, and your fundamental approach has major issues, so if GW is using it it may explain their poor outcomes.

I personally think it's likely they are using a formula like yours and lazily tweaking the output, making you partly right (you cracked the GW code!) and partly wrong (the GW code doesn't actually work!)

All that said, you should keep up the good work. This is a useful hobby tool and a fun project. Just stop claiming it shows and does things that it doesn't and you won't draw so much flak (unnecessarily harsh flak, I might add).

^ thank you for that.

The primary part of this I feel is balanced is the hullpoints/speed/armor value and the wounds/toughness/save metrics I came up with. Whenever I say I feel something is balanced, I do it based on comparing it to units that I don't see people complain about as being over powered.

With the changes I have done recently, the LAST iteration of the revenant was about 30 points too cheap (the latest one upcoming from forgeworld is a travesty and should be easily worth 1400 points, minimum) and I had compared it to the shadowsword in their most balanced environment (superhuge floor battle where the range of the shadowsword isn't wasted)

Now, the revenant was 30 points too strong on a general basis, the shadowsword is 10 points overpriced generally, but another 80 points too expensive when on an average sized table. Making it 90 points too expensive. The baneblade pays too much for the cannon by about 30 points, then an additional 10 for overcharging for the extra hullpoints making it 40 points too expensive in general. I don't think those numbers are far off the mark.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
You need to stop making claims about what your math does not show.

Along those lines, you need to stop making claims based on circular logic. Even if you did find the magic formula GW uses for pricing their units (because GW makes all the same mistakes you do, like ignoring special rules) that doesn't make it balanced. You seem to claim that your math is balanced because GW possibly uses it, and GW's units are balanced because they use math. None of those things follow from one another, they're baseless. This is circular logic.

Great "hamburger" message there (nice open, something meaty, and a gentle close), except he completely missed it...

Except I haven't missed it. The part where the circle of the circular logic fails is where it keeps being said that I believe games workshop is balanced because they use math. I have on numerous occasions showed a direct imbalance they either missed or outright allowed for whatever reason. I did admit I STARTED with pricing my weapons according to what games workshop does to allow people to build current models and see how accurate the vdr was. I haven't been of that mindset for about three additions now, I simply missed a couple of weapons along the way.

I think my math is becoming more balanced because I am doing what games workshop doesn't, I am asking you guys to help. I am working towards a point where the rules here will allow you to rebuild every monster and vehicle in the game and they will be on a much closer playing field. Then, if you want to build something totally new, it won't be so rediculously powerful as to detract from your opponent's gaming experience.

So, in conclusion, can we stop pretending that I am blindly following what I believe to be the exact model of games workshop's pricing system. It is really getting old.

To show what has changed so far, I am going to post where the point totals are for the units that still exist from the apocalypse supplement if using the vdr.

Imperial guard
Baneblade: 485 points
Banehammer: 348
Banesword:420
Doom hammer: 395
Hell hammer: 530
Shadowsword: 365
Stormlord: 470
Stormsword: 475

Space marines
Thunderhawk gunship: 588

Chaos
Lord of skulls: same, but may charge a unit even if it did not fire at them. Don't forget that this thing can tank shock and ram without losing any shooting or close combat ability (unless I missed something, let me know!)

Orks
Gargantuan squigoth: 390
Stompa: 745

Eldar
Phantom: 1050 points, add pulsar for 424, d-cannon 330, close combat weapon 170
Revenant titan 950

Tyranid
Barbed heirodule 477 points
Harridan: 644
Heirophant biotitan: price the same, but change the biotitan warp field to a 3+ invul.

What do you guys think? How far off do you see these versions in regards to points?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Chaos
Lord of skulls: same, but may charge a unit even if it did not fire at them. Don't forget that this thing can tank shock and ram without losing any shooting or close combat ability (unless I missed something, let me know!)

Compare the LoS (888) to a Knight Warden (375).

'Consensus' is that the LoS is quite overpriced (by ~2-300pts), while the warden is very slightly overpriced (by ~25pts)

Lets say:
- Warden has Ion Shield, 6HP + AV 13/12/12
- Lord of Skulls has 9HP + AV 13/13/11
LOS wins slightly on durabilty, but not by much. In particular, it can be glanced by S5 and penetrated by S6 (think scatterbikes) in the rear which IMO is quite a big loss.

Thunderblitz vs Stomp
Personally I think Stomp is the clear winner here. Thunderblitz works once IF you get the tank shock off against the enemy (they're within 12" at the start of your movement phase), and can be countered by T6 / Invulernables. Stomp works every combat phase at I1, regardless of who you're fighting, and can reliably damage hordes or pinpoint remove-from-play characters. A lord of skulls can be locked in combat by grots; a Warden can stomp his way out much more quickly.


First ranged weapon
Avenger Gatling Cannon vs Hades Gatling Cannon
- Warden has S6 AP3 Heavy 12 rending (at BS4)
- LoS has S8 AP3 Heavy 12 (at BS3)
Against infantry of most kinds (T4 3+), Warden wins out here. Higher BS, + rending to get at 2+ saves.
LoS mostly wins against vehicles, but the Warden does have some unique potential with Rending.


Combat Weapon:
4 SD attacks at I3 vs 3 SD attacks at I4. Much the same, slight advantages to each. On but wait, Warden gets Stomp which is worth another 5 SD attacks on its own...

By my reckoning (no formulas used, just gut instinct) the Warden here is losing by a small amount, though not a lot.
So our 375pt model is fairly equivalent to the 888pt model minus its Gorestorm cannon. If I was building an army, I'd pay about 50pts more for the LoS sans Gorestorm cannon than I would for the Warden. Possibly. The loss of Stomp is HUGE. Plus with the actual rules where he annihilates his potential charge targets...
That means you're valuing the Gorestorm cannon at roughly 500pts. Its a fantastic weapon to be sure... but is it THAT good?

Possibly the issue is that the LoS has some fantastic ranged weapons and combat weapons, but can't use both at the same time; and his various stats/rules prevent him from leaving combat once he starts. ESPECIALLY without the ability to charge something he didn't shoot at. The Warden on the other hand has the ability to tag units to shoot at, but also reliable means for stomping his way out of combat eventually.

Which is why I gave it the rule to allow it to charge anything it wants, I could have added a heavy stubber, but didn't want to change the model.

Don't forget, the lord of skulls is also a daemon, so it gets the 5++ from that. It also has it will not die and gains extra attacks for each hullpoint lost meaning that if they were head to head, the lord of skulls will get a save against anything but a 6, and will get extra attacks when it gets to swing afterwards giving it a much higher chance of killing the imperial knight. It then has the chance to regain the (average 4) hullpoints it lost as it rolls over the wreckage of the knight it just crushed.

It is still a one sided victory for the lord of skulls most of the time. The only issue is (again) the 6 on the destroyer table skipping too far on the damage scale for the price. Which is why I will suggest toning it down to d3+3 in a section at the end of the vdr. It just fixes too many things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, warden can't stomp the lord of skulls.