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.

Rockfish wrote:
If you look at competitive tau lists they basically make use of two things to get around how goofy MLs are:
1. Use units that are good even with just 1, see commanders, firewarriors, and riptides
2. Use a vanguard of se'cea firesight marksmen which are character bs3+ MLs and cheap as chips

When you consider the cost of the above solutions you can understand why tau competitive lists are pretty predictable, ~850 points of riptides, ~450 of commanders, ~210 of FWs does not leave much space for messing around with anything else.

Its made worse by Tau anti armor options being weeeird, you have this thing where every classic armor buster is kinda crap since they rely on low volume of fire high ap random damage shots, which in the current invuln and knight meta is garbo. You end up with two choices, take the units that are good enough to stand on their own without support, or take units that are inherently unreliable and hyper dependent on combining every possible buff. This of course leads to riptide wings and firewarrior castles, which are reliable because they use weight of shots, which in turn makes them dreadful to play and play against.

Absolutely spot on. Only thing you forgot is another ~200 of drones. .

gendoikari87 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
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

So gendoikari87, your points cost are based on the premise that Ogryns, Armigers, and Battle Sisters are properly valued but no other units are? I see why your results are so strange. I doubt very many people will agree with these as the best three basis points for determine point cost of all unit.

its better than fething marines, got any better options?

The point is, your entire premise is based on shaky foundations. You've chosen three units, seemingly at random, and created a mathematical system that seems to work for those units, but which has no evidence of being accurate for anything other than those units. Even if your assumption hat those 3 units are accurately costed is correct it doesn't necessarily follow that your formula is. TBH, I'm surprised people are taking your formula seriously at all.

The mods on this website are all power hungry monsters. of course this is not their fault, anytime one person is told they have been elevated to a higher position corruption naturally follows, even just on an internet forum. it is for this reason that no hierarchy should exist without an extremely good well researched reason.

kill your gods, kill your masters.

ccs wrote:

Straight_Memer wrote:

ccs wrote:

Karol wrote:
Well D6 isn't that great to be honest. Flat d3 or 4 would be much better.

Well, that'd depend on what end of the attack your on.
You hitting me? Yeah, you go ahead & roll that D3.
Me hitting you? I'm using the D6.

Pretty sure he means flat damage 3/4

Eh. If it's just straight 3 or 4 damage I'd still choose the d6 roll as being better. I'm fine with gambling on doing 4+damage. And I'm absolutely fine with you botching a roll against me & only doing 1 or 2. I have no objections to sitting at 2 wounds & surviving a d6 roll.

Bit of an odd response and I think you miss the point. You basically said “Im okay when it works out for me, and I’m okay when it doesnt work out of the other person.” Which could be said about anything, but most of the time there is no reason to roll a D6 over flat 4 or even 3

You don't need proof or "a better idea" to disprove a model. You just need a single counter-example.

I kind of agree with him here, three units is too little data to base a model on, if you could create a formula that is based on 10-15 units from different factions... now we're talking.

The general idea is not bad, but your results are unreliable at best.

gendoikari87 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

gendoikari87 wrote:
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

So gendoikari87, your points cost are based on the premise that Ogryns, Armigers, and Battle Sisters are properly valued but no other units are? I see why your results are so strange. I doubt very many people will agree with these as the best three basis points for determine point cost of all unit.

its better than fething marines, got any better options?

At this point, the most recent GW pointed reference models would be Ork Boys, Ork Nobs, and Meganobs. But I'd wait for Chapter Approved and see what GW is really thinking on a larger range of units.

Oh oh, I got one: "Delays".

I'd like to see T'au commanders be moved to BS3 and have the limit on them removed from detachments (They still need a version of it because of the different datasheets).

BS2 goes against marker lights and doesn't even really make sense. Why are Tau commanders suddenly so much better than IG HQs

Humans and Tau are on par when it comes to shooting, Tau use markerlights to have better shooting.

 Jidmah wrote:


You don't need proof or "a better idea" to disprove a model. You just need a single counter-example.

I kind of agree with him here, three units is too little data to base a model on, if you could create a formula that is based on 10-15 units from different factions... now we're talking.

The general idea is not bad, but your results are unreliable at best.

Frequently, a single example doesn't disprove an entire model. Typically systemic problems are needed to completely discredit a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More importantly, this is NOT how GW prices units, nor will it ever be the way they price units.

I did not mention that sort of intentionally, as that is a separate dependency but it in turn makes the flex able point count even smaller.

Marker lights probably should be auto hit. However as a tau player - this would easily take me from marking 1-2 targets with 5 markers to marking 3-4 instantly. That would probably be too much. It would help a lot of bad units for sure - BUT - I'd much rather see markers stay how they are and those bad units get point cost reductions or improved rules.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:


You don't need proof or "a better idea" to disprove a model. You just need a single counter-example.

I kind of agree with him here, three units is too little data to base a model on, if you could create a formula that is based on 10-15 units from different factions... now we're talking.

The general idea is not bad, but your results are unreliable at best.

Frequently, a single example doesn't disprove an entire model. Typically systemic problems are needed to completely discredit a model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More importantly, this is NOT how GW prices units, nor will it ever be the way they price units.

The model is supposed to show how they should be priced though. Whether GW does it that way is an entirely different question.

This is purely a idle thought, but you could leave markerlights essentially identical but make it so they ignore hit penalties and are fired in the movement phase instead. Then they are more reliable to place on targets, but you must anticipate what you are going to use them on rather than being able to dynamically change as the shooting phase goes on. This would also give greater utility to some of the effects, for example you can move units after you know that they can ignore movement penalties on a target.

The problem with the model is that it just arbitrarily goes "uh, yeah this is a bit better than guard, that's worth some points. This is a bit better than guard in a different way. That's worth some points. Uh..."

There is no reason a Termagaunt should be the same points as a Guardsmen in a 1+1=2 system.

Fair enough.

There's also problems associated with the fact that almost every unit in the game has instances of both diminishing and compounding returns based on how many of each unit you take. For example, custodes jet bike captains. 1 Jetbike captain is fair, 3 jetbike captains is a bit op, 6 jetbike captains hit diminishing returns due to not having enough points for support.

Then for cheaper stuff you have the horde problem. Space marines are far too expensive for their stats, but there's a clear floor to how cheap they can get before they become the most devastating horde army in ths game. Very few people have the models to field it, but footslog SoB at 9ppm is already an absolutely obnoxious list to go against. People complain about 3+ saves sucking, which is absolutely true when you only have 50-60 models on the field. If you can suddenly afford to have 150-200 3+ saves then trying to carve through all of that, even at t3, is an exercise in frustration. Tbf neither sob or sm hordes have any significant killing power, but they'd be almost impossible to shift for any army with significant resources invested into anti-tank.

TL: DR: Models and units change effectiveness as you add more. Pointing 1 unit of X correctly doesn't necessarily mean 3 units of X will be pointed correctly.

First leaks from French Wargame Studio, the guy is pretty much always spot on when he reveals things (since he gets it directly from GW) so you can probably take the following for granted:

- Land Speeder to 50 points.
- Chapter Approved for the 15 of December (approximately)
-Crisis suits a little over 30 pts
- Not much nerfs and mostly ups.
- Named characters cost a lot less, to the point that they may become auto-includes. Castellan Crow is now 80 points and Trajann droped by 75 pts for example.
- Codex SoB release for oct/nov 2019
- Farsight to 125pts
- Eldrad is 15 points cheaper
- +3pts on shining spears
- +60/70 pts for the Necron super heavy (more than likely the Tesseract Vault)
- No change for Abaddon
- Chos cultists to 5pts
- Deathwatch (and more generally all space marines) droped by 5-10%
- Draigo << 200pts
- Intercessor had a very small points drop.
-Warden Custodes' cost is now closer to their troops, the terminators also got a reduction.
- Almost no nerfs for the IK (nothing on the small ones, a bit on the big ones). 

 Aenarel wrote:
First leaks from French Wargame Studio, the guy is pretty much always spot on when he reveals things so you can probably take the following for granted:

- Land Speeder to 50 points.
- Chapter Approved for the 15 of December (approximately)
-Crisis suits a little over 30 pts
- Not much nerfs and mostly ups.
- Named characters cost a lot less, to the point that they may become auto-includes. Castellan Crow is now 80 points and Trajann droped by 75 pts for example.
- Codex SoB release for oct/nov 2019
- Farsight to 125pts
- Eldrad is 15 points cheaper
- +3pts on shining spears
- +60/70 pts for the Necron super heavy (more than likely the Tesseract Vault)
- No change for Abaddon
- Chos cultists to 5pts
- Deathwatch (and more generally all space marines) droped by 5-10%
- Draigo << 200pts
- Intercessor had a very small points drop.
-Warden Custodes' cost is now closer to their troops, the terminators also got a reduction.
- Almost no nerfs for the IK (nothing on the small ones, a bit on the big ones). 

Love to hear more on the SOB Codex!! But Nov 2019 FFS..

Wait, so they added points to necrons?
Goddammit, what a load of crap.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wait, so they added points to necrons?
Goddammit, what a load of crap.

Chill man, they only nerfed the super heavy (maybe). I bet the crons will get the buffs they need. It seems they are dishing out some decent buffs. We'll just need to wait and see what they'll get exactly.

Anyway, In addition to the rumors posted, it was also mentioned that there might not be just points updates, but datasheet updates as well.

Gryphonne wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Wait, so they added points to necrons?
Goddammit, what a load of crap.

Chill man, they only nerfed the super heavy (maybe). I bet the crons will get the buffs they need. It seems they are dishing out some decent buffs. We'll just need to wait and see what they'll get exactly.

Anyway, In addition to the rumors posted, it was also mentioned that there might not be just points updates, but datasheet updates as well.

Maybe, but it doesn't bode well that the first leak is a points increase, imo.
Unless he's trying to be crafty or something.

Is that draigon being cheaper then 200pts or the revers?

10% off Termintors and power armored dudes is nice. They still cost a lot of points, but a 10 man squad will not cost 40+ pts less for me.

Still I wonder if points drops or hikes is all that CA going to bring. Because even at 10% less a GK army still kind of a sucks.

I wonder what are those new auto include special characters. Some NDK new model or a maybe a jetbike GK librarian could be a nice addition to the army.

Well, it's really a bunch of utterly random tidbits across several factions.

For example, cultists going to 5 points? Hints at across the board increase to "trash infantry", and if that's true then a lot of things including marines and necrons get better by comparison even if unchanged.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, it's really a bunch of utterly random tidbits across several factions.

For example, cultists going to 5 points? Hints at across the board increase to "trash infantry", and if that's true then a lot of things including marines and necrons get better by comparison even if unchanged.

Hopefully. It could also just be for cultists.
Considering how they increased Orks from 6 to 7 points, that might be the case though.

Cultists going to 5 points pretty much confirms that Guardsmen will also be going to 5.

Maybe guard are even going to 6, they are better than cultists after all.

Its possible (total guesswork) that a few other swarmy infantry are getting increases too.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Considering how they increased Orks from 6 to 7 points, that might be the case though.

It's because they received Dakka Dakka Dakka which is a 17% shot volume increase. 6*1.17 = 7.02

That's not enough to justify a whole point.

PuppetSoul wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Considering how they increased Orks from 6 to 7 points, that might be the case though.

It's because they received Dakka Dakka Dakka which is a 17% shot volume increase. 6*1.17 = 7.02

But it only increases hit rate by 5%.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Maybe guard are even going to 6, they are better than cultists after all.

Its possible (total guesswork) that a few other swarmy infantry are getting increases too.

That is not going to happen... they would need to reprice veterans, and also reprice stormtroopers if that were the case. Far easier (and more fair) to put IS as 5ppm.