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.

Kitane wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Nemesis Greatsword is S8, -3, and D6 instead of D3. It also doesn't have -1 to hit.

...

But that's not a GK terminator weapon...

Sorry got coffee - the daemonhammer is straight D3, which is better than a fist for a point. Force swords at D3 damage and no penalty are not slouch if you have hammerhand, but that's getting into the weeds.

Regardless the point being is that those numbers are silly.

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

Karol wrote:
But then again, so is a BA marine fist costing the same as an IG dudes powerfist.

Marine fist is 12. IG is 8.

 Mr Morden wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

You can't include Chapter Tactics in that, because we all know that SoB are getting their own versions pretty soon. So it is a mute point.

I do agree with the rest though, that any statline increases should be reflected by more than a 0.5 point increase.

I was purely about basic Gk Terminator vs SM TEQ with powerfist. 9.5 point marines would be insane. Tough I do belive basic boltgun/pistol/CCW SM should be 11.

Kdash wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

You can't include Chapter Tactics in that, because we all know that SoB are getting their own versions pretty soon. So it is a mute point.

I do agree with the rest though, that any statline increases should be reflected by more than a 0.5 point increase.

Nope - current points may be different in the Codex even with Order Tactics - Orks went up for instance. Present we pay 9pts for a Sister without that ablity.

I honestly thought that calculator list was a joke. But everyone is treating it as serious. Is this what a reverse woosh feels like?

I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Sir Heckington wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Ah right - thats just silliness.

Going from T3 -> T4 is worth a lot more than going from T10 -> T11

Going from S1 -> S2 on a Fire Warror or Suit or something means a lot less than going from S3 -> S4 on a model armed with a jetpack and a chainsword.

Going from S3 -> S4 means a lot more on a A5 model than an A1 model.

Point calculators, even ignoring all special rules, require exponential complexity as you add stats that have interplay. You simply aren't going to be able to do that short of a PHD thesis.

Kdash wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

You can't include Chapter Tactics in that, because we all know that SoB are getting their own versions pretty soon. So it is a mute point.

I do agree with the rest though, that any statline increases should be reflected by more than a 0.5 point increase.

because those are cc stats and cc counts for roughly half what shooting does because shooting gets to go first. Period. Sometimes twice before melee ever matters. 1a base on both also decreases the relevance. In short currently marines pay for cc stats that never matter that much. The roughly half point difference is mostly because of the extra toughness


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if any one is curious reference points used are ogryns, armigers and batyle sisters (hence why they are unchanged) I originally ised marines as the mathematical base but you can imagine the problems that caused as marines are stupidly over priced

gendoikari87 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

You can't include Chapter Tactics in that, because we all know that SoB are getting their own versions pretty soon. So it is a mute point.

I do agree with the rest though, that any statline increases should be reflected by more than a 0.5 point increase.

because those are cc stats and cc counts for roughly half what shooting does because shooting gets to go first. Period. Sometimes teice before melee ever matters. 1a base on both also decreases the relevance. In short currently marines pay for cc stats that never matter that much

That doesn't excuse completely ignoring the fact that T4 is MASSIVELY superior to T3(S4 weapons are all over and not being doubled out by S6 is very useful). And just because they don't get a lot of use out of the CC bonuses doesn't mean they're worthless. Add on superior equipment options and I'd say 2-3 pts more than SoB is totally fair. .5 points is 100% hyperbole. Now if you wanted to argue that SoB should be 8 and marines 10, that might be fair.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Ah right - thats just silliness.

What? That stats are worth more based on other stats? How is that silliness?

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Ah right - thats just silliness.

What? That stats are worth more based on other stats? How is that silliness?

A and WS is still worth something, even if they can't get into combat offensively. Its called a counter charge. You let the enemy come to you.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Ah right - thats just silliness.

What? That stats are worth more based on other stats? How is that silliness?

A and WS is still worth something, even if they can't get into combat offensively. Its called a counter charge. You let the enemy come to you.

Of course, it's still worth something (Where did I say it wasn't'??), but it's worth more if it's a dedicated CC unit with ways to get into CC. It's the same reasoning that has thunder hammers cost more for characters.

Empirical testing. Formulae fail utterly.

Guys and gals - I can 100% guarantee you there will not be a section in Chapter Approved that explains the methodology used to select a unit's point cost.

ERJAK wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:

Kdash wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
Look people i have the calculator if anyone wants it but heres what straight math says a few units should be:

Marines: 9.5
Sisters: 9
Guard: 5.5
Terminator(pf sb): 39.3
Gk terminator: 39.2
Gk marine: 20.1

Ok how eactly does the Marine pay nothing but 0.5 pts for the following bonuses:

+1 WS, S, T, Chapter Tactics

You can't include Chapter Tactics in that, because we all know that SoB are getting their own versions pretty soon. So it is a mute point.

I do agree with the rest though, that any statline increases should be reflected by more than a 0.5 point increase.

because those are cc stats and cc counts for roughly half what shooting does because shooting gets to go first. Period. Sometimes teice before melee ever matters. 1a base on both also decreases the relevance. In short currently marines pay for cc stats that never matter that much

That doesn't excuse completely ignoring the fact that T4 is MASSIVELY superior to T3(S4 weapons are all over and not being doubled out by S6 is very useful). And just because they don't get a lot of use out of the CC bonuses doesn't mean they're worthless. Add on superior equipment options and I'd say 2-3 pts more than SoB is totally fair. .5 points is 100% hyperbole. Now if you wanted to argue that SoB should be 8 and marines 10, that might be fair.

t 3-4 isnt a massive boost its 16% in durability which on average is about half the point cost of a model. Its math

It's not massive, but it's also not fixed at 16%. Which is why this approach fails.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not massive, but it's also not fixed at 16%. Which is why this approach fails.

that was an average


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry max not average

Sir Heckington wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:

Cinderspirit wrote:
I guess you just gave each characteristic a point value and added stuff together? X points/S, + Y points/T, +++? But do you include stuff like being able to shoot at all? Or being able to take special weapons? I dont think applying some trivial algorithm will lead to points costs which work out on the table.

It won't because some stats are worth more based on the other stats of a unit. The A and WS of a unit are worth more if they have a good reliable way to get into combat, but if they don't, it's worth gak.

Ah right - thats just silliness.

What? That stats are worth more based on other stats? How is that silliness?

A and WS is still worth something, even if they can't get into combat offensively. Its called a counter charge. You let the enemy come to you.

Of course, it's still worth something (Where did I say it wasn't'??), but it's worth more if it's a dedicated CC unit with ways to get into CC. It's the same reasoning that has thunder hammers cost more for characters.

If something is worth gak, it usually means something is worthless.

16% is actually the lower-bound *limit* that a stat change can impact short of having no impact at all.

The mimimum non-zero impact a +1T gives is 20%: going from a 2+ to a 3+ to be wounded yields a 20% increase in durability. But 3+ to 4+ is a 25% increase, 4+ to a 5+ is a 33% increase, and 5+ to a 6+ is a 50% increase.

Now, 1pt of T often has a 0% increase. So the average might be lower than the above might suggest. For more detail, here's each step vs a couple common strengths:

Step : S3 : S4 : S5
1=>2 : 20% : 0 % : 0%
2=>3 : 25% : 20% : 20%
3=>4 : 33% : 25% : 0%
4=>5 : 0% : 33% : 25%
5=>6 : 50% : 0% : 33%

Note how going form 1 to 2 has barely any effect, whereas 2=>3, 4, 5, and 6 have a much larger effect. You can't fairly point +1T because it's not a consistent value.

We can use the canonical sister vs marine comparison to examine this issue.

S2 hit AP0:
Sister: 0.33*0.33= 0.11 wounds
Marine: 0.166*0.33= 0.055 wounds
Marine takes half the wounds, or 50% less.

S3 hit AP0:
Sister: 0.5*0.33= 0.17 wounds
Marine=0.33*0.33=0.11 wounds
Marine takes 35% less wounds

S4 hit AP0
Sister: 0.66*0.33=0.22 wounds
Marine: 0.5*0.33=0.17 wounds
Marine takes 23% less wounds

S4 hit AP -1:
Sister: 0.66*0.5=0.33 wounds
Marine: 0.5*0.5=0.25 wounds
Marine takes 24% less wounds

S5 hit AP 0:
Sister: 0.66*0.33=0.22 wounds
Marine: 0.66*0.33=0.22 wounds
Marine takes identical wounds

S5 hit AP -1:
Sister: 0.66*0.5=0.33 wounds
Marine: 0.66*0.5=0.33 wounds
Marine takes identical wounds


S6 hit AP0:
SIster: 0.83*0.33=0.27 wounds
Marines: 0.66*0.33=0.22 wounds
Marine takes 19% less wounds

S6 hit AP-1:
Sister: 0.83*0.5=0.42 wounds
Marine: 0.66*0.5= 0.33 wounds
Marine takes 21% fewer wounds

S6 hit AP-2:
Sister: 0.833*0.66= 0.55 wounds
Marine: 0.66*0.66= 0.44 wounds
Marine takes 20% fewer wounds

This is just a sampling of weapon types. 20% pops up a lot in this analysis, but there is also a 0%. Enemy weapon distribution makes a huge difference. Obviously, S5 is the shaft for marines. How do you get a 16% average out without knowing enemy weapon distribution?

The analysis completely changes for boyz vs sisters. I'm a science guy, and I'm telling you the math is not simple on this at all.

I'm laughing at people who think Kabalite Warriors should be 8ppm.

For the first time in i can't remember when, Dark Eldar are actually playable. Leave Britney alone.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm laughing at people who think Kabalite Warriors should be 8ppm.

For the first time in i can't remember when, Dark Eldar are actually playable. Leave Britney alone.

This is correct, if we go with the guardsmen/kabalite/firewarrior/ranger paradigm for troops.

I could just as easily laugh about guardians being 8 ppm. A kabalite is undeniably better than a guardian.

Can all (or at least mostly) agree that Kabs being 6 and Guardians being 8 is bad?

Evidently not.

If everything else remained the same Kabs going to 8 would have a very token impact on DE. Its not as if you bring along 100 of them.

Whatever will they do with their undercosted transports firing undercosted weapons?