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.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I refuse to not make things pay for abilities they possess, even if it is obscene range and they aren't playing in a space big enough to use it. I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.

The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.

And it gets that save IN ADDITION to other saves it may be entitled to: cover saves from ruins or invulnerable saves from blessings. Its the only thing in the game that can completely negate a deathblow result from S(D) weapon. So it SHOULD be better than a 3++ save.

I honestly don't care if you're just recreating GW's costs. If you're doing that, you're never going to come to any conclusion other than 'GW priced this correctly'.
If GW priced holofields at a flat 25pts per facing, in their original VDR or now, they were wrong, and if you try to follow their 'method', you'll get answers that don't prove anything other than that you can add to 900. Its fairly basic logic that a 50% increase in survivability is not worth the same amount of points on a AV10 transport and on a 9HP superheavy.

To be honest I think you're completely wrong about weapon range as well. Any weapon range > 60" may as well be the entire table for all intents and purposes, and as far as I can tell ranges beyond this are assigned completely arbitrarily.
Case in point: some weapons have unlimited range. If weapon cost is proportional to range, then unlimited range weapons must have unlimited cost.
Furthermore... as has been pointed out, the current Revenant rules appear in a 40k book, designed to play regular 40k games on regular 40k tables. Its silly to say it is balanced for apocalypse when it is intended to be used in regular games.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
And the 4++ on one facing, times four facings is 100 points, which is why I used that as a guideline. And since a 4++ on all facings, including in melee now seems to be only 40 points total me considering the holofield to be 150% more effective doesn't seem that far out of line.

Again, HOLOFIELD STACKS WITH SAVES. You can't just treat it as a 4++, and this idea that a one-facing 4++ is worth 25 points in the first place is entirely your own invention.

The lord of skulls appears to have been bumped to 888 from about 880. They piled every special rule they could on it to give it those points.

And it's worth maybe 500 or so at most. There is no way the fluff cost is only 8 points more than it should be. If it really was that small a difference the nobody would be declaring it a garbage unit over a 1% difference in price.

The reason I say use the modified strD is BECAUSE I think GW priced strD too low for what it gives you.

So then you admit that GW doesn't use the point system you're using.

The baneblade is a general purpose weapon loadout designed to cover maximum area, agreed? So when you kit out the revenant with an 18" help storm template with super torrent that wounds on a 3+, is ap2 and rolls 3d6 for armor penetration I would say those two would be the best comparison in regards to coverage and optimal target choices.

No it isn't a valid comparison at all because D-weapons are so blatantly overpowered. Nobody takes the flamer Revenant because D-weapons do everything does and also kill other stuff. You're trying to defend the Revenant that people actually use with a straw man comparison involving the bad Revenant against a tank that has a "similar role". And that role seems to be "make my comparison work and justify the Revenant".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I told you how to drop the price of the weapon systems by lowering the range, and was instead told it should keep the range and just receive a benefit of points.. That doesn't make sense and I won't do it.

Why should a unit that is already weak for its point cost have to have its stats nerfed to justify a point decrease? Any reasonable person would just reduce the point cost of the Shadowsword to balance it. Your argument that you need to change its stats first seems to be focused on defending the accuracy your design rules (since dropping the Shadowsword's price without nerfing its stats would mean that your assigned price must be wrong) rather than fixing the real-world problem.

The holofields work like this. If it doesn't move and is hit, that hit is negated on a 1 or 2. If it moves, that hit is negated on a 1,2, or 3. It is never any better odds than 50/50. It isn't a better chance of negation than a flat 3+ invul save, and it is still priced 40 points MORE than that 3++ in my rules. It was designed to allow the eldar superheavies to survive heavy firepower when they can't jink and are forced to stay below av13.

Seriously, we keep telling you this but you keep refusing to acknowledge it: HOLOFIELDS STACK WITH SAVES. You get a 50% damage reduction IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER DAMAGE REDUCTION. If you have a 3++ then you roll your 3++ AND you roll the 4+ holofield. You can't price it like a mere invulnerable save because it is a much more powerful ability.

OK, it gets the bonus in addition to other saves. It is STILL paying 5 more points for survivability than an av 14 all the way around walker. If you give that imaginary walker a cove save or a power happened gave it an invuln save, how much more survivable is that other walker? It only is weaker against a 16% chance on a weapon that may not be on the table while being completely immune to things that can PEN the revenant.

It is worth the same on both a regular vehicle or the superheavy, because it all comes down to how often it is needed to work. Say you gave it to a warwalker (not allowed, by the way because it is limited to superheavies and fortifications in the vdr) would you want to pay 100 extra points for that bonus? No, it would be a waste of points.

The bigger the unit, the better the protection you want. How often does a riptide need to use its energy shield against missile launchers? How about autocannon? If they were priced according to how durable the unit is as a percentage, the game would be a total mess for game size.

With the lord of skulls, your proposal would make it pay an additional 250+ points for the 5++ it gets for being a daemon. Do you really think it is worth almost 1300 points?

The holofields aren't a save, they are there to REPLACE the durability that the revenant can't have due to limitations on eldar vehicles. It negates hits, but more things that hit can wound it than ANY other titan in the game. It has less armor than the imperial knights for crying out loud.

 Xerics wrote:
Also it isn't his VDR. He took what GW made a long time ago and updated it to current edition and should be commended for that.

And maybe he should be commended for that, but it's not what he's doing now. Now he's trying to claim that his point system is the one that GW actually uses, and must be accurate. The problem with this should be obvious since the original VDR was NOT the same as the system GW used for official rules. GW explicitly stated that it's not the same system, and if you try to create official vehicles with the VDR you don't get the same point costs.

Not to mention that a Void shield absorbs an entire D shot with a 100% chance.

No it doesn't, because in real games nobody will ever shoot D-weapons at void shields.

Just because you choose to play on a tiny board doesn't mean the Revenant isn't balanced. It just isn't balanced for the circumstances YOU want to play with.

It isn't balanced on ANY realistic gaming table. If the only way for a unit to be balanced is to rent an entire football field to play the game then the unit isn't balanced. Even full-scale Apocalpse tables are limited to about 6' across since you have to be able to reach models in the center of the table. This makes the Revenant's shorter range irrelevant 99% of the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
OK, it gets the bonus in addition to other saves. It is STILL paying 5 more points for survivability than an av 14 all the way around walker. If you give that imaginary walker a cove save or a power happened gave it an invuln save, how much more survivable is that other walker? It only is weaker against a 16% chance on a weapon that may not be on the table while being completely immune to things that can PEN the revenant.

Why are we assuming that the AV 14 walker gets a save but you can't put a similar ability on the Revenant? The fair comparison is the AV 14 vehicle with a save against the Revenant with a save AND a holofield.

It is worth the same on both a regular vehicle or the superheavy, because it all comes down to how often it is needed to work. Say you gave it to a warwalker (not allowed, by the way because it is limited to superheavies and fortifications in the vdr) would you want to pay 100 extra points for that bonus? No, it would be a waste of points.

...

If a holofield isn't worth 100 points on a war walker then it isn't worth the same on both a superheavy and a regular vehicle. You just refuted your own argument here!

If they were priced according to how durable the unit is as a percentage, the game would be a total mess for game size.

The game wouldn't be a mess at all. The only "problem" would be that your vehicle cost rules wouldn't work the way you want them to. Players never have to see the piece-by-piece cost that goes into a unit, they just see the final point cost regardless of how you as a game designer calculated it.

With the lord of skulls, your proposal would make it pay an additional 250+ points for the 5++ it gets for being a daemon. Do you really think it is worth almost 1300 points?

Where are you getting this ridiculous argument from?

Perigrin, how many time must you be told that I DIDNT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER! Games workshop, chapter approved vehicle design rules, look them up. I keep saying that it IS better than a 4++, by (and read this number carefully) 150% and priced it accordingly.

I based my point total for every blast type strength D weapon with the volcano cannon as the base because it was the only single blast variant. It literally cannot be too cheap of a weapon because I based all of my other numbers off of it. The revenant pulsars are priced slightly above the volcano cannon because the volcano has double the range, but half the shots. If the volcano and pulsar had the same range, the volcano cannon would be exactly half the points because they would have the exact same profile but one fires twice. How hard is that to understand? The shadowsword ONLY underperformed because it waste points on range, nothing else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is 100 points worth of survivability, it just isn't needed on something the size of a warwalker. And go ahead and ignore the fact I say it isn't allowed to have it anyway.

I was asked to try and make my update as close to gw's pricing as possible, so I did. Whenever I found a discrepancy, I would look at the math to see what may have happened. Look at the ork examples above if you don't believe me.

Use my vdr, test run it against other units, see what it does. Then you can tell me it doesn't work.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

If the point totals above are correct, I am indeed going to have to modify the primary weapons of some of the baneblade variants.

With my system (using the stats listed above, assuming av 14/13/12)
Baneblade 505 (not bad)
Bane hammer 530 (WAY OFF, not sure how that happened but thank you!)
Shadowsword 455
Banesword 430 (I don't like being above, I'll address it)
Doom hammer 465 (again, wondering if I somehow didn't take another weapon into account or if the price changed for the better)
Hell hammer 530
Stormlord 582! (No excuse for this, I apologize for that large of a flubb. Will definitely fix that when I get a chance this weekend.)

Now, if the av on some is higher, that may account for some of the points above. If not then yes, I will have some tinkering to do.

So you're creating points values without being certain of what these units even possess?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

If you don't place them at maximum distance, then the shadowsword are wasting points on unneeded range. That was my point with this whole thing! If other superheavies were designed to fight on a 6x4 table, the revenant wouldn't stand out at all.

I can fight on a 6x4 table, and have a Battlecannon be out of range if there's a line to the corner. A Shadowsword should have a longer range than that, being a titan Sniper. And being a titan sniper, its main gun needs a new profile entirely.

Ok so I posted the following in the OPS VDR thread, however he seems more intent over here.

 Happyjew wrote:
Just want to see if I did this right

Small Eldar MC

Durability: Toughness 8, 3+ Armour Save: 80 pts
Wounds: 3 Wounds: 25 pts
Ranged Weapons: 2x Shuriken Canatapults: 8 pts
Melee Weapons: 3 Attacks at WS4: 9 pts
Options: Fearless: 5 pts

So I have (I think) 127 pts. The only thing I'm not sure on is if I screwed up Wounds (is it 25 pts per Wound, or 25 pts for all 3 Wounds?) and Attacks (is it 3 pts for each attack, including the base 1, or is it 3 pts for each attack after the base?)

Depending, I am looking at 124-177 pts for the model (I think).

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Perigrin, how many time must you be told that I DIDNT MAKE UP THAT NUMBER! Games workshop, chapter approved vehicle design rules, look them up.

The VDR "holofield" is not the same thing as the holofield the Revenant has. Its point cost is irrelevant. You invented a new point cost for an entirely unrelated upgrade that just happens to share the name as the old rule.

Also, GW never used the VDR for official rules, so attempting to apply VDR point costs to official units is completely inappropriate.

I keep saying that it IS better than a 4++, by (and read this number carefully) 150% and priced it accordingly.

Why 150% Why not 140% or 175%?

I based my point total for every blast type strength D weapon with the volcano cannon as the base because it was the only single blast variant. It literally cannot be too cheap of a weapon because I based all of my other numbers off of it.

...

Did you really just say "the numbers can't be wrong because otherwise my rules would be wrong"?

The revenant pulsars are priced slightly above the volcano cannon because the volcano has double the range, but half the shots.

...

Who cares about the range? Shot count is WAY more important than the range difference, so the pulsar should be almost double the cost of the volcano cannon. Your rules do not reflect the reality of the game.

If the volcano and pulsar had the same range, the volcano cannon would be exactly half the points because they would have the exact same profile but one fires twice. How hard is that to understand? The shadowsword ONLY underperformed because it waste points on range, nothing else.

You're massively over-valuing the range difference, and even if the Shadowsword over-pays for range so what? Reduce its point cost without reducing its range and you've made it better balanced. This balance approach is only a problem when your primary goal is to defend the accuracy of your standardized point structure.

It is 100 points worth of survivability, it just isn't needed on something the size of a warwalker.

On a Revenant it's more than 100 points worth. On a warwalker it's less than 100 points worth. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the fact that an upgrade can have different values depending on what you put it on?

I was asked to try and make my update as close to gw's pricing as possible, so I did.

And you failed, because GW doesn't use a VDR-style system for their point costs. You're trying to reverse-engineer something that doesn't exist.

Lyth, why are you arguing on Dakka instead of running custom campaigns and custom design for your local group?

You obviously have some talent and some passion for this, frankly I think it's wasted in arguing over balance with random people on the Internet.

It's harder to argue against results than theory -- as they say in writing, show don't tell!

Yeah, the old 3rd edition VDR holofield was both completely different and still universally reviled.

And I still believe your theoryhammer is so far removed from reality as to be useless.

I do, we run things with this rule set all the time. I've never had a problem with what was put on the table, whether it was a superheavy walker variant of the wraithknight or my buddy's custom robots for his space marines based on the gundam models he uses for them.

I wanted to share it, I wanted to show how it worked, apparently people have so little faith in anything GW does that the minute someone shows they may actually have an idea of what they are doing in regards to points that person must automatically be wrong.

So you've never found something to be underpowered?

By using essentially the same costs that GW uses.

Right.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I wanted to share it, I wanted to show how it worked, apparently people have so little faith in anything GW does that the minute someone shows they may actually have an idea of what they are doing in regards to points that person must automatically be wrong.

But you haven't shown that. You've just demonstrated that if you assume GW's point costs are mostly correct and fudge the numbers a bit when they don't line up right you can create your own system that generates similar point costs. The fact that your system sometimes agrees with GW doesn't mean that the resulting point costs (or GW's costs) are balanced.

Also, once again, GW does not use a VDR-style system. And they never used the original VDR for official rules, it was purely a separate "build your own vehicle" project that had nothing to do with GW's own work. You're trying to reverse-engineer something that doesn't exist.

As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true

And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true

No, it doesn't mean that at all. Here's an example:

Peregrine's Design Rules (PDR):

1) Add up the AV. Multiply by the HP. Multiply by 100000000000000. This is the point cost of the vehicle.

There, anything you make will be over costed. Erring on the side of making everything too expensive doesn't mean that the "fair" costs are determined by a VDR-style formula instead of iterative playtesting and/or guessing at what "feels" right.

And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.

Which is what you'd expect given that the VDR costs are multiple editions out of date and were never the actual costs used in official rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
As I said before, for them to say that "whatever you make it will be a little over costed, and these rules were designed for that to happen" means they HAD to have a system, otherwise that couldn't be true

And I've found a lot of things under and over priced, primarily with weapons pricing.

Look Lyth, trying to justify GW costing is pointless, as you can prove that things are unbalanced and nonsensical. CSM and SM units cost about the same, but due to special rules and cheaper (and better) gear, SM are far more effective.

If you made the costings your own, that'd be fine and then you could tweak things to improve balance, but the fact remains that GW NEVER uses construction rules. Trying to justify GW's decisions with logical fallacies like "if they made something overcosted, then that'd make my rules wrong, therefore they were right" is not going to get us anywhere.

It's been a long time since I saw a proper Peregrine beatdown in General Discussion. Glad to have you back. We could have used you during the Dman137 days...

Here's what I would propose as far a superheavy unit costs go: (Keep in mind these are only as vague benchmarks)

Baneblade with sponsons: ~400 points
Shadowsword: ~600 points
Hierophant Bio-Titan: ~800 points
Warhound Scout Titan: ~1100 points, Dual Turbolasers ~1400 points
Tau Supremacy Armour: ~1200 points
Revenant Titan: ~1500 points
Reaver Battle Titan: ~2000 points
Phantom Titan: ~3000 points
Warlord Titan: ~3500 points

What rules did I use to design this? Gut instinct as to what felt the most balanced, and the need to keep certain units out of lower-point games. Look at it this way: now its easy to make your points allotment for an Apocalypse team game! Just bring two Warhounds!

Here's an example of why GW is not using a VDR-style formula: the 6th edition IG codex changed various tank prices from the 5th edition versions, but they changed in inconsistent ways.

The LR Demolisher got more expensive despite getting a nerf rules-wise (losing the old "lumbering behemoth" rule and being crippled by the ordnance rule on its main gun) and gaining nothing in return.

The LRBT kept the same price despite getting the exact same nerf as the LR Demolisher.

The LR Exterminator got buffed (without the ordnance penalty the "heavy" type is better than the old rule) but got a cheaper point cost.


There is no possible way to rationalize all three of these tanks with a supposed VDR-style point system. If there's a consistent price for unit components (stat lines, weapons, etc) across multiple editions then none of the three tanks should have changed prices as none of their individual stats/weapons/etc changed. If there is a consistent price for unit components that is updated with every new codex and edition then all three tanks should have had their points changed in the exact same way (since they all had the exact same rule change). The ONLY way to explain what we see here is if GW assigns point costs based on what feels right (with or without playtesting to refine the initial number) without any kind of formula to calculate them. Someone at GW said "the LRBT is about right, the Demolisher is too good and needs to be more expensive, and the Exterminator is too weak and needs to be cheaper".

If you try to reverse-engineer a VDR-style system to produce those LRBT costs then you will never get the right answer.

 Peregrine wrote:

If you try to reverse-engineer a VDR-style system to produce those LRBT costs then you will never get the right answer.

Well, unless you just massively over-value the Ordnance rule

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, unless you just massively over-value the Ordnance rule

Even then it doesn't work because the LRBT and LR Demolisher both have ordnance weapons, but got different point adjustments in the 6th edition codex.

Heirophant is op points too expensive, give it a 3++ and the tyranid form of it will not die. You priced the shadowsword higher than the core rules and everyone is telling me that is too expensive.you are booking for the reaver, the warhound is too high (not by much) and you are about 80 points too high on the ta'unar.

Perigrin, your points system isn't good. Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Perigrin, your points system isn't good.

Neither is yours. At least mine is deliberately bad to prove a point.

Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?

I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.

They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.

Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points. Doing well so far, if you would stop and actually LOOK at what I've done so far.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.

You're missing the point here. All three vehicles got the exact same rule change, so if GW is using a VDR-style formula to calculate their costs then they should have all received the same point adjustment (since no other rules changed). But in reality one increased in price, one stayed the same, and one decreased in price. Your system is indisputably not the one GW uses.

Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points.

But that's not what you're doing, you're creating your own system and then trying to defend that system. GW is not using your process, so pointing out how your process adds up to certain values doesn't tell us anything about what GW did.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Perigrin, your points system isn't good.

Neither is yours. At least mine is deliberately bad to prove a point.

Did you even bother to look at the one I did, or have you made a baseless point about its inability to actually give points appropriate to warhammer 40k?

I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.

If you change strD, how is it bad? Tell me. How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there. And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home. But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.

How will I ever be as mentally capable as you? Show me how you fix point totals in 40k so everything is balanced.

You show me how it is done, peregrine. I'll check back in the morning.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If you change strD, how is it bad?

Because you're trying to explain how the Revenant is balanced, now how your house-ruled version of the Revenant matches your own point system that you used to create it. If you want to talk about the GW Revenant being balanced then you have to use the D-weapon rules as-printed.

How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there.

Because floor games with entire rooms as the battlefield are so absurdly rare compared to normal games that making ANY balance decisions based on floor games is insane.

And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home. But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.

Yep. That's what happens when you build your system based on an approach that is fundamentally broken. If the premise of your system is that a 4+ invulnerable save is worth the same number of points no matter what unit it is applied to then your system is wrong. A system that assumes fixed point costs for upgrades/stat lines/etc will never work in a game with such a wide range of unit scaling as 40k.

Show me how you fix point totals in 40k so everything is balanced.

Guess at what the points should be. Playtest. Revise those numbers based on playtesting. Playtest more. Revise. Repeat until you have numbers that are accurate enough. The process is simple, it just takes months/years of effort from a decent group of people.

I think I have a question that really needs to be answered.

Lythrandire Biehrellian, is okay if you are wrong?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
I've seen enough of it to know that your approach is fundamentally broken. And, as demonstrated by your Revenant vs. Shadowsword vs. Baneblade arguments, the conclusions it generates are just as bad.

If you change strD, how is it bad?

How is me literally saying that the shadowsword should pay for the range it has in case of floor games bad when I then tell you how to fix it so the problem isn't there.

And somehow your point is that "I read enough to know it is bad" I spent 9 months updating this system with the help of several people in this community and play testing with my group at home.

But somehow you spotted the problems within minutes.

It's nonsense, because GW supposedly set prices based on the old S(D) rules, not on the imaginary S(D) rules that you just pulled out of your butt. Prices that you have claimed to be completely fair, but others know not to be correct for on the sorts of tabletop that GW would have used when they set the prices in the first place.

A Warhound should pay more for it's 2-shot S(D) Turbo-laser Destructors, compared to the shorter-ranged 2-shot Eldar Pulsars on a Revenant Titan. However, it shouldn't be 96/60 more, because 96" range isn't functionally that much better than 60" range on a typical 4' x 8' table. And in no way does a single 120" shot from a Volcano Cannon trade with 2x 60" shots from an Eldar Pulsar. Claiming the Volcano Cannon to be correct "because I said so" is also ridiculous, because floor games just don't occur that often, and that's not how GW would have set the price.

I think just about everyone is saying that they read enough to know it is bad. I would simply remind you that quantity of effort does not guarantee quality of result. That is why people are saying your VDR is bad, despite all of your efforts invested.

It's also wrong that you claim it took "minutes" to determine what was wrong with your system. In my case, I spotted the problem within SECONDS of you claiming the Revenant to be correct, and then claiming the Baneblade to also be correct. And it got worse when you said the Shadowsword was correct. I'm sorry, but none of that is possibly true when the crowd is so clearly opposed. Now it may work fine for you and your group; however, that just means that your small group is not indicative of the population at large, and should not be used to make such grand statements.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
They shouldn't have allowed heavy vehicles to be affected by ordinance. It was a stupid decision, and I don't believe they realised how much it mattered with those units.

Games workshop fails all the time, I am trying to figure out where they go wrong with their points. Doing well so far, if you would stop and actually LOOK at what I've done so far.

I did, and it concluded that Baneblade cannons are worth twice as much as they actually are.
You're basing your system off a broken system that has no rules. If you wrote it from the ground up, it'd be different. But you're copying GW and saying "this much be right , because I made a system that adds everything up to these costs" without working out if your item-by-item breakdown is a fair asessement.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I do, we run things with this rule set all the time. I've never had a problem with what was put on the table, whether it was a superheavy walker variant of the wraithknight or my buddy's custom robots for his space marines based on the gundam models he uses for them. .

Has anybody really tried to break it? Probably not.

For example, consider an Imperial superheavy walker with AV14/14/12 front, 6 HP, and SIX 72" S8 AP1 Vanquisher Cannons (Armorbane for +2d6 AP), Void shields, Jet pack and Stealth. Fast and hitting like a ton of bricks with 6x 72" S8 AP1 shots, averaging 3 hits that should penetrate AV14. Annoying too, because they get the JSJ thing via the Jet pack. When the enemy gets a bead on them, Stealth! If it gets hit, Void Shield! If it needs to bug out? Move, Run, Thrust and it's gone.

How many points for this? Only ~460 points, but it's fair, because I built it using the VDR.


Seriously, nobody checked the stats tables. 15 points for a BS3 Vanquisher Cannon? and only +10% more for AP1? Compare that with a long15-pt Multi-Melta for more points, but far less effective range

(To be fair, this took a few minutes, but it only took seconds to pick out the weak parts of the tables).