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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW doesn't use a strict formula, and if they do then doing so is misguided. Any formula would require too many false assumptions and fail to account for how stats actually interact with the game.

LOL - you realize the stat formula he is suggesting literally does that. It accounts for the average of how stats interact in the game. Literally. That is what it does.

Except it doesn't.

"These things never existed at the same time. DE was pretty far gone once 7.5 codex came out. 7.5 was basically another edition that only a few armies got codex for."
But their head-to-head isn't relevant to the question. The question is how to reconcile these two claims you stake to be true:

-At the point when Kabs in transports were OP, Kabs were OP because their transports were undercosted
-At the point when Tacs in transports were OP, Tacs were not OP because their transports were undercosted

I'd argue that they can't both be true.

It's more complicated than that. Obj sec tacs were firing OP grav cannons from the firing ports of FREE obj sec rhinos.

Were BA tacs in rhinos firing heavy flamers OP? If only.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW doesn't use a strict formula, and if they do then doing so is misguided. Any formula would require too many false assumptions and fail to account for how stats actually interact with the game.

LOL - you realize the stat formula he is suggesting literally does that. It accounts for the average of how stats interact in the game. Literally. That is what it does.

I'm surprised to see you agreeing with the idea that Devastators should pay significant points for their WS advantage.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

Well unless you are a Catachan then you are Strength 6 - any way for a marine to get more than 4 strength?

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

The answer is imperial guard are undercosted. They have been since the jump.

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

The cost of weapons is based on the faction stats, mostly WS and BS. IG have lower WS, so melee weapons cost less.

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

The cost of weapons is based on the faction stats, mostly WS and BS. IG have lower WS, so melee weapons cost less.

That doesn’t make sense imo, because you’re already paying for the stat.

What would please me greatly is if Land Speeders dropped in price.

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

The cost of weapons is based on the faction stats, mostly WS and BS. IG have lower WS, so melee weapons cost less.

The cost different is likely from strength. The Catachan S boost is not considered in cost, because they can't assume people will take Catachans.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gryphonne wrote:

That doesn’t make sense imo, because you’re already paying for the stat.

Not entirely true. Weapons are separate, but melee weapons canbe especially state dependent. It's no different than MT paying higher prices for guns, because they're BS3.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm pretty sure GW doesn't use a strict formula, and if they do then doing so is misguided. Any formula would require too many false assumptions and fail to account for how stats actually interact with the game.

LOL - you realize the stat formula he is suggesting literally does that. It accounts for the average of how stats interact in the game. Literally. That is what it does.

I'm surprised to see you agreeing with the idea that Devastators should pay significant points for their WS advantage.

Not exactly what I am saying. Tacs and devs should pay the approximate same cost for the WS stat. The stat is equally useless on both of them though. I also think that game play should be taken into account. Just that something like this formula should be the base cost for all models in the game. Then through play testing we could figure out if any adjustments needed to be made based on game play experience. In this exact example I think you will fine almost the exact same use for the WS stat. Attacking back after being charged - why should devs pay less for that ability? It actaully has more value on a dev than a tac because if a dev unit clears an attacker in CC they can should heavies after. Tacs do that all they do is shoot bolters.

Gryphonne wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Karol wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

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.

I thought they cost the same because of catachans. If they are cheaper then this is even stranger.

The cost of weapons is based on the faction stats, mostly WS and BS. IG have lower WS, so melee weapons cost less.

That doesn’t make sense imo, because you’re already paying for the stat.

It makes sense as the platform is only one part of the ultimate whole, and the context changes with different weapons. A powerfist delivering S8 has more value than a powerfist delivering S6. Same reason a Dread pays a dramatically higher points cost for what is effectively the same piece of equipment.

This is not entirely covered in the base cost of the model, it can't take into account every potential enhancement applied to it. While GW doesn't get into great depth with this, we do see this breakdown on armywide scales where there are clear gaps between average stats.

GW applied this costing theory to several IG codex books throughout many editions.

 Insectum7 wrote:
What would please me greatly is if Land Speeders dropped in price.

That would please me. ESP LSS.
I have 5 LST and 6 LSS. I miss them lots.

Need a delete button.

Attempts and rate of success for attempts are not identical.

PuppetSoul wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Exploding 6's equals +0,33 BS.

I get where you're pulling that number from, but it's wrong.

Exploding 6s grant 17% more attacks. It does not matter what those additional attacks hit on, so long as they hit on the same numbers as the original attack: if you get 17% more attacks, it's the equivalent of hitting 17% more often (an additional BS).

It's actually slightly better than a BS in practical application, because extra attacks which can't be locked out by stacking -to hit are more valuable than an additional BS in any situation where the -to hit would set you below BS6. Not going to come up that often, but still a reality.

I think you're confusing exploding attacks that give you another attack from those that generate extra hits.

Martel732 wrote:
Attempts and rate of success for attempts are not identical.

Heavy 6 exploding 6's has identical statistical value to heavy 7 without exploding 6's. Heavy 6 exploding 6's though has practical advantages because it has a higher potential damage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

PuppetSoul wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Exploding 6's equals +0,33 BS.

I get where you're pulling that number from, but it's wrong.

Exploding 6s grant 17% more attacks. It does not matter what those additional attacks hit on, so long as they hit on the same numbers as the original attack: if you get 17% more attacks, it's the equivalent of hitting 17% more often (an additional BS).

It's actually slightly better than a BS in practical application, because extra attacks which can't be locked out by stacking -to hit are more valuable than an additional BS in any situation where the -to hit would set you below BS6. Not going to come up that often, but still a reality.

I think you're confusing exploding attacks that give you another attack from those that generate extra hits.

That is what he is describing yes. I always though exploding 6's ment (proc on 6) you could always change what the proc is.

Outside of to hit modifiers or other events happening on 6s, or scenarios where less variability is preferred, or scenarios with rerolls or...

Well, that's a lot of scenarios where Heavy 7 and Heavy 6 exploding 6s aren't identical.

Bharring wrote:
Outside of to hit modifiers or other events happening on 6s, or scenarios where less variability is preferred, or scenarios with rerolls or...

Well, that's a lot of scenarios where Heavy 7 and Heavy 6 exploding 6s aren't identical.

Yeah ofc - this game has a lot of strange modifier issues. If the proc is unmodified though that really helps.

Spoletta wrote:
Indeed the problem here is a matter of terms. "Exploding dice" is tipically referred to something like the Tesla rule, where a 6 generates 2 hits. In that case, it is indeed an additional point of BS.
Dakkadakkadakka is not truly an "Exploding dice", it's less powerfull and the effect depends on the BS of the model.

I think that depends on your context - in most games I've played which involve an "exploding dice" rule, you first pick the shrapnel out of your hair, then roll an additional die (which may or not be able to explode as well).

Double hits on a maximum roll isn't a standard use for "exploding dice", as far as I can tell.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Attempts and rate of success for attempts are not identical.

Whatever happened to your promise that you were going away until 9th edition rolled around?

Got bored.

Okay, got something I want from CA:

Decrease in points for Tau crisis suits, I don't think that was mentioned, they could certainly use it.

Agreed. Are suits BS 3+ or 4+?

Martel732 wrote:
Agreed. Are suits BS 3+ or 4+?

4+ for supposed veterans that is terrible aim.

OMG. I thought that suits were caught up in GW's woody for overcosting BS 3+.

Suits are iconic and should be usable.

Tau Markerlights are a bit like Necron Resurrection Protocols: The rules writers expected you to always get fair usage out of them, and so all of the points costings based around them are dumb. Tau significantly less so, but still stuck hoping your enemy isn't slathering their army in -1 or more to hit.

Martel732 wrote:
OMG. I thought that suits were caught up in GW's woody for overcosting BS 3+.

Suits are iconic and should be usable.

They've always been BS4+ or the equivalent, though, so it's not really a big deal. Crisis suits just cost too much (and are horrifically slow in 8E, but I don't see CA fixing that).

Then they should clearly be charged for BS 4+ output. Not what they are now.

The mistake with marines does get repeated many times in other codices, and this is proof. Xenos are just more insulated, because not every unit ends up being tainted by one miscosting. It's just a unit no one uses.