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 recently had a rather heated discussion with several members of this community in regards to the overpowered nature of the new wraithknight. My stance was that it should drop the "jump" classification, or have another 60 points added to the cost.

I based my side of the discussion on the huge amount of math I had done updating the vehicle design rules, and the wraithknight seemed to line up well against that. I have since had the time to math out gargantuan monstrous creatures the same way, the wraithknight if built by the standards of EVERY OTHER GARGANTUAN MONSTROUS CREATURE should be 365 points base, and 425 points if you add jump.

I am always willing to admit when I am wrong, I didn't have the resources available at the time to truly get my math done right. I am sorry.

So...'sorry, I'm more right than I thought I was?'

 Jimsolo wrote:
So...'sorry, I'm more right than I thought I was?'

yeah, that's kinda what i was reading too

However the point may have been made, he is correct.

Yes, I too was thinking the WK was about 100 points under costed, but 425 does seem to hit the right spot. GW F'd that one up, no doubt.

SJ

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I recently had a rather heated discussion with several members of this community in regards to the overpowered nature of the new wraithknight. My stance was that it should drop the "jump" classification, or have another 60 points added to the cost.

I based my side of the discussion on the huge amount of math I had done updating the vehicle design rules, and the wraithknight seemed to line up well against that. I have since had the time to math out gargantuan monstrous creatures the same way, the wraithknight if built by the standards of EVERY OTHER GARGANTUAN MONSTROUS CREATURE should be 365 points base, and 425 points if you add jump.

I am always willing to admit when I am wrong, I didn't have the resources available at the time to truly get my math done right. I am sorry.

There isn't really an official vehicle design rule and point calculation scheme, right? So you are talking about your own method.

I'm sure those numbers were calculated perfectly.

Confirmation bias

What I am saying was that I thought the wraithknight was maybe 60 points undercosted, turns out it is 70-130 points undercosted depending on if it has the jump classification on its profile. That is a huge discrepancy in points.

As for conformation bias, maybe. But my method generates vehicles and now gargantuan monstrous creatures that are within 10 points of their official counterparts (40 for some superheavies) which was a deliberate act to ensure people didn't easily abuse the system.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What I am saying was that I thought the wraithknight was maybe 60 points undercosted, turns out it is 70-130 points undercosted depending on if it has the jump classification on its profile. That is a huge discrepancy in points.

Is Jump a 60pts upgrade?

As for conformation bias, maybe. But my method generates vehicles and now gargantuan monstrous creatures that are within 10 points of their official counterparts (40 for some superheavies) which was a deliberate act to ensure people didn't easily abuse the system.

So you created a system, which has the same result as the notoriously unbalanced GW system? And you consider it an achievement?

Moved to correct forum.

Take a closer look at all the effort he's put into the Vehicle Design Rules. Looks rather amazing what he came up with.

Most people would have retconned their memory of what they had been saying. It looks to me like this guy, after vehemently backing his position, further analyzed it instead of dismissing others' opinions, and when it turned out he was wrong, he publicly admitted it, and updated his opinion.

If we had more people like this, the boards (or any group, really) would be a much better place.

(His amended position is substantially different from his old position, just take another look at his numbers. His old position was costed fine minus JMC. His new position is 70pts too cheap minus Jump, or 130 pts too cheap with.)

Shouldn't you have posted this in the thread discussing it?

But I agree with you - less than 300p for a WK is a steal

Hey, it's ok.

Zsolt wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What I am saying was that I thought the wraithknight was maybe 60 points undercosted, turns out it is 70-130 points undercosted depending on if it has the jump classification on its profile. That is a huge discrepancy in points.

Is Jump a 60pts upgrade?

As for conformation bias, maybe. But my method generates vehicles and now gargantuan monstrous creatures that are within 10 points of their official counterparts (40 for some superheavies) which was a deliberate act to ensure people didn't easily abuse the system.

So you created a system, which has the same result as the notoriously unbalanced GW system? And you consider it an achievement?

Jump is a 10 point per hull point/wound upgrade. And while their system may be notoriously unbalanced, there IS actual math behind it. I have another thread about things I had discovered when I was updating these rules. The primary reason some vehicles seem undercosted or overcosted has to do with their synergy of delivery and target focus. An Ork stompa or chaos lord of skulls seems out of line when compared to the revenant titan, until you start to add up the massive amount of guns, the strD melee, and the number of targets they would consider viable on the tabletop.

When you factor in versatility, you start to see that their points aren't off at all. It is just that the revenant is more focused on taking down other superheavies, while the lord of skulls and stompa are there to knock down normal armies. When iI built a revenant titan with my V.D.R. I found that games workshop priced the 36" move ability at around 125 points. That is a lot for movement, no matter how you look at it.

You can fit math to any data set.

The trick is minimising the power of the equation while also minimizing the variance.

The benefit I had when doing this was actually the vehicle design rules from 4th edition. They were broken as all get out, but I felt that if games workshop had an actual algorithm for vehicles and released a version for community use it would be the same style of worksheet. I didn't think they would create an entirely new way to do the work if they had a standard already.

So, I made the rules work for that edition, then tweaked them until it worked for this one. I had a lot of feedback on my thread, and those people really helped me break it down so it wouldn't be easy to abuse.

Been a labor of love, and the current version is in the link in my signature.