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 know it would be extremely hard to write fair rules for it, but I'd love to see a bespoke character or elite unit in the game, where everything can be changed up to a point, even stats as long as they are realistic and stay true to the faction. In the lore you always get characters or units that are so goo they can take on insurmountable odds like Ingvars unit in blood of asaheim or Kassers in shroud of night, I'd like to field a unit like that. Obviously you'd pay the points for it and I think you should only be able to take one in any detachment and can't ally them. Do you think it could be done?

Counts-as Knights.

One Movie-Marine with a Gatling gun + Chainsword on top of a pile of enemy corpses the height of a Warden.

One Movie-Marine with a Power Fist and a Chainsword on top of a pile of corpses the height of a... Errant?

One Movie-Marine with a missile launcher on one shoulder, Gatling gun on the other hand for the Knight with two guns.

Scouts on smaller piles of corpses to represent the smaller Knights, Helverins?

Finally, an end to the “fix marines” threads.

I'd take a squad of 26W marines against a swarm of gaunts/boys/cultists(200ish or equal # of wounds). It would be spectacular. maybe add in a razorback/HQ for thematic reasons.

I would suggest you buy Chapter Approved 2018, then.

Page 14 has what you're looking for.

Also, heroes*.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
I would suggest you buy Chapter Approved 2018, then.

Page 14 has what you're looking for.

Also, heroes*.

No, I mean complete bespoke, as I wrote in my first comment. I'm not asking for 'this is some what like what you are looking for'.

Ah, ok then. Wish in one hand, defecate in the other. See which one fills up first.

CA2018 is the closest you have and, I would wager, the closest you ever will have unless you wade into the arena of the unwell we call 'house rules'.

Like it or lump it.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ah, ok then. Wish in one hand, defecate in the other. See which one fills up first.

CA2018 is the closest you have and, I would wager, the closest you ever will have unless you wade into the arena of the unwell we call 'house rules'.

Like it or lump it.

Its a hypothetical, I'm asking if it would work, so I don't need inane dismissive comments like 'we already have that' (when we have nothing like it) and 'like it or lump it'.

I would prefer not to play against fanboy "hero" units. Let's not do this.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ah, ok then. Wish in one hand, defecate in the other. See which one fills up first.

CA2018 is the closest you have and, I would wager, the closest you ever will have unless you wade into the arena of the unwell we call 'house rules'.

Like it or lump it.

Its a hypothetical, I'm asking if it would work, so I don't need inane dismissive comments like 'we already have that' (when we have nothing like it) and 'like it or lump it'.

I didn't say we already have that, 'cause we don't.

Invent house rules for your group, then. GW will, I'd wager, never release rules for this for so so so so so so many so so so so obvious reasons.

So get on with making your own and remember to empty your hand once in a while.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Do you think it could be done?

No, because GW's rule-writing is not that granular and quantifiable - in fact, I can't think of any wargame that breaks things down so cleanly that you can just build something from the ground up.

Plus, that would mean you have to trust your opponent to have done everything right, and didn't somehow drop half the points it should have cost. Players have enough trouble not accidentally/on-purpose forgetting things with units straight out of the books, going over points in 40K, exceeding SWC points in Infinity, whatever, already.

 Excommunicatus wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
Ah, ok then. Wish in one hand, defecate in the other. See which one fills up first.

CA2018 is the closest you have and, I would wager, the closest you ever will have unless you wade into the arena of the unwell we call 'house rules'.

Like it or lump it.

Its a hypothetical, I'm asking if it would work, so I don't need inane dismissive comments like 'we already have that' (when we have nothing like it) and 'like it or lump it'.

I didn't say we already have that, 'cause we don't.

Invent house rules for your group, then. GW will, I'd wager, never release rules for this for so so so so so so many so so so so obvious reasons.

So get on with making your own and remember to empty your hand once in a while.

Yes you did, otherwise why is what you had said relevant in any way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Do you think it could be done?

No, because GW's rule-writing is not that granular and quantifiable - in fact, I can't think of any wargame that breaks things down so cleanly that you can just build something from the ground up.

Plus, that would mean you have to trust your opponent to have done everything right, and didn't somehow drop half the points it should have cost. Players have enough trouble not accidentally/on-purpose forgetting things with units straight out of the books, going over points in 40K, exceeding SWC points in Infinity, whatever, already.

Its literally quantifiable, the whole game is based around it being quantifiable. If it was qualitative then there would be no points system. I'd agree with you if you mean its not balanced enough to incorporate it.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its literally quantifiable, the whole game is based around it being quantifiable. If it was qualitative then there would be no points system. I'd agree with you if you mean its not balanced enough to incorporate it.

Uh, no. Unit point costs are quantifiable, attribute point costs are not. GW does not have a table where BS 2+ costs X points, BS 3+ costs Y points, etc, and you can just sum up everything and get a final result. They make an initial guess at a whole unit's value, then playtest and refine it based on experience. That's not at all the same as just picking stats and rules from a list and immediately having a balanced unit.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Its literally quantifiable, the whole game is based around it being quantifiable. If it was qualitative then there would be no points system. I'd agree with you if you mean its not balanced enough to incorporate it.

Uh, no. Unit point costs are quantifiable, attribute point costs are not. GW does not have a table where BS 2+ costs X points, BS 3+ costs Y points, etc, and you can just sum up everything and get a final result. They make an initial guess at a whole unit's value, then playtest and refine it based on experience. That's not at all the same as just picking stats and rules from a list and immediately having a balanced unit.

Yes they do. They do that by measuring how well they do in the game and quantify it. Just because its not perfectly measured does not mean it is not quantified.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes they do. They do that by measuring how well they do in the game and quantify it. Just because its not perfectly measured does not mean it is not quantified.

It's like you didn't read what I said, at all.

That level of granularity and customization might be better suited for a role playing game. Deathwatch?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes they do. They do that by measuring how well they do in the game and quantify it. Just because its not perfectly measured does not mean it is not quantified.

It's like you didn't read what I said, at all.

More like you didn't spend much time thinking about what you said. You stated its not quantified and then explained the reason for how its quantified.

I don't think this works. Currently we choose a wl trait from a list of at least 7 options, and a relic, some fractions get to choose psy powers and two war gear, with choice of upgraded armor or jump pack. But it usually ends up that the obvious best gets taken. Characters also generally are immune to guns for most of the game.

Overall I think if you want to play an unkillable unit use knight rules for a different model as suggested above.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I don't think this works. Currently we choose a wl trait from a list of at least 7 options, and a relic, some fractions get to choose psy powers and two war gear, with choice of upgraded armor or jump pack. But it usually ends up that the obvious best gets taken. Characters also generally are immune to guns for most of the game.

Overall I think if you want to play an unkillable unit use knight rules for a different model as suggested above.

Not unkillable, just more survivable etc. So if you had a certain mission, it could be this unit that has to get the relic/mission points etc. To reflect some of the lore. I have enough cheesy units to just be for cheese sake like Custodes etc.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes they do. They do that by measuring how well they do in the game and quantify it. Just because its not perfectly measured does not mean it is not quantified.

It's like you didn't read what I said, at all.

More like you didn't spend much time thinking about what you said. You stated its not quantified and then explained the reason for how its quantified.

We said that the individual components of a unit are not quantified. The final price of the unit is quantified, how much a point of BS, inch of movement speed, etc cost are not quantified separately. Your idea does not work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
Yes they do. They do that by measuring how well they do in the game and quantify it. Just because its not perfectly measured does not mean it is not quantified.

It's like you didn't read what I said, at all.

More like you didn't spend much time thinking about what you said. You stated its not quantified and then explained the reason for how its quantified.

We said that the individual components of a unit are not quantified. The final price of the unit is quantified, how much a point of BS, inch of movement speed, etc cost are not quantified separately. Your idea does not work.

You would quantify them in the same way you do everything else. They already quantify a unit with BS2 and WS... so clearly they could have a universal cost for BS scale or WS scale, and THAT is the question I'm asking, could they do that and make it work. You are implying it can't be quantified otherwise what exactly are you saying, because we've established that its quantified though you are saying its not. I mean what are you actually trying to say? The only thing you could say that would be right is that 'it's only quantified to a degree' which I've already stated.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
so clearly they could have a universal cost for BS scale or WS scale

They couldn't and don't, because the value of those stats depend on the unit that has them. BS 2+ on a model with a lascannon is worth a lot more than BS 2+ on a model that only has a bolt pistol. Any fixed chart would either undercost stats on models that can use them effectively or overcost them on models that can't. And attempting to make such a chart for custom characters would inevitably lead to min-maxed nonsense that breaks the game almost as badly as it breaks the fluff.

I mean what are you actually trying to say?

I'm saying that rules design doesn't work at all like you think it does, and your idea is never going to happen.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
so clearly they could have a universal cost for BS scale or WS scale

They couldn't and don't, because the value of those stats depend on the unit that has them. BS 2+ on a model with a lascannon is worth a lot more than BS 2+ on a model that only has a bolt pistol. Any fixed chart would either undercost stats on models that can use them effectively or overcost them on models that can't. And attempting to make such a chart for custom characters would inevitably lead to min-maxed nonsense that breaks the game almost as badly as it breaks the fluff.

I mean what are you actually trying to say?

I'm saying that rules design doesn't work at all like you think it does, and your idea is never going to happen.

That's fine, that's what I was asking about, but it could still be quantified, its whether they could make it work or not that is the question. They could easily quantify it, its whether or not they could do it well. "BS 2+ on a model with a lascannon is worth a lot more than BS 2+ on a model that only has a bolt pistol." and yet they already do this.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
That's fine, that's what I was asking about, but it could still be quantified, its whether they could make it work or not that is the question. They could easily quantify it, its whether or not they could do it well.

Yes, technically they could say that BS 6+ costs 100 points and BS 2+ costs 1 point. That would be "quantifying it" by the most literal definition. But implicit in the statement that they can quantify the costs is the assumption that those costs are reasonable and achieve the desired balance goals.

Somewhat off-topic, but actually they do, Peregrine. I think it was Jervis who said in a recent White Dwarf article that they indeed have a reasonably complicated spreadsheet function to make the initial point values, at least for AoS (and thus most likely for 40k too), which is then honed through internal playtesting. What its weights looks like and how much variables it contains, we don't know, but I'd guess it is indeed in the end weighted towards the unit values more than individuals.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
That's fine, that's what I was asking about, but it could still be quantified, its whether they could make it work or not that is the question. They could easily quantify it, its whether or not they could do it well.

Yes, technically they could say that BS 6+ costs 100 points and BS 2+ costs 1 point. That would be "quantifying it" by the most literal definition. But implicit in the statement that they can quantify the costs is the assumption that those costs are reasonable and achieve the desired balance goals.

Exactly what I was asking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sherrypie wrote:
Somewhat off-topic, but actually they do, Peregrine. I think it was Jervis who said in a recent White Dwarf article that they indeed have a reasonably complicated spreadsheet function to make the initial point values, at least for AoS (and thus most likely for 40k too), which is then honed through internal playtesting. What its weights looks like and how much variables it contains, we don't know, but I'd guess it is indeed in the end weighted towards the unit values more than individuals.

Do you know if they do that with 40k at all?

Problem is that you couldn't really make it as simple as "each point of Strength = +1pt".

A point of Strength, for example, is worth more on a model with more attacks, which is worth more on a model that is tougher and so on. A point of Toughness would be virtually worthless on a model that literally can't do anything, while having the best melee character wouldn't work on a model with T1 W1.

The best I can think of is that you have a base cost for each characteristic, and then add a "weight" (essentially a multiplier) to each that increases or decreases depending on the values of other characteristics. For example, Strength might have a base cost of 1 and a weight of 0.2 per Attack, and vice versa. So a model with a Strength of 5 and 4 Attacks would have a weight modifier on 0.8 on their Strength and 1.0 on their Attacks, which you apply as a multiplier to the base cost for each of those stats, giving a total of 4+4.

A more elegant solution might be to have a "blank canvas" character for each faction and a list of possible upgrades you could apply to it, much like the character creation rules in CA18 but with points.

Indeed, each element would be a “factor” related to a baseline.

For example, let’s say a model with

M WS BS S T A W SV
5 4+. 4+. 4 4 1. 1. 4+

Armed with a Boltgun.

If we set that at an arbitrary 100 points, we’d be looking at a few factors. How much of that 100 points is devoted to the movement stat? With a mid-range Weapon, mobility is not important. Increasing or decreasing the M stat has low impact.

M7 might increase the value of the model by 10 %. But what about ranged offence?

Improving the BS to 3+ increases offensive potential by 33% (3 hit results to 4 hit results) but how important is ranged damage output to this model? Primary damage mode, but we have CC and Defensive stats, as well as board control potential. So a 33% increase to 40% of a model’s value is about 14%.

So now we have 100 x 1.1 x 1.14 = 125 points.

What about 2 attacks? Non-primary damage, so CC potential is maybe 10 % of the model’s worth? Probably less, in all honesty. But for the sake of discussion, we’re doubling cc so we’re increasing the value by another 10%. 138 points.

But that same structure goes ass over tea-kettle if we change the armament from Boltgun to Powerfist (only).

Now the movement is critical, the BS doesn’t matter at all, and attacks straight double the primary damage method. That’s before considering the initial change of armament.

The point is... while hypothetically possible, at some point arbitrary, estimated values must be used. Human tactics will limit how much of a model’s potential can be harnessed.

If the play-testers aren’t able to exploit certain units to their maximum potential (units that a obviously undercosted when abused) they may not accurately assign their arbitrary values. The wider the interaction pool (allies) the less likely these arbitrary values are to be correct.

It is the salesman’s dilemma. Google it.

 Cheexsta wrote:
Problem is that you couldn't really make it as simple as "each point of Strength = +1pt".

A point of Strength, for example, is worth more on a model with more attacks, which is worth more on a model that is tougher and so on. A point of Toughness would be virtually worthless on a model that literally can't do anything, while having the best melee character wouldn't work on a model with T1 W1.

The best I can think of is that you have a base cost for each characteristic, and then add a "weight" (essentially a multiplier) to each that increases or decreases depending on the values of other characteristics. For example, Strength might have a base cost of 1 and a weight of 0.2 per Attack, and vice versa. So a model with a Strength of 5 and 4 Attacks would have a weight modifier on 0.8 on their Strength and 1.0 on their Attacks, which you apply as a multiplier to the base cost for each of those stats, giving a total of 4+4.

A more elegant solution might be to have a "blank canvas" character for each faction and a list of possible upgrades you could apply to it, much like the character creation rules in CA18 but with points.

Well I could see it working with most of the points going towards the stats which is more impactfull and then have a separate points section that includes weapons/relics/auras etc. that is added on. No doubt it would be very convoluted, but I mean its still very simple math, its not impossible and I don't think its as impossible as people think. I mean the whole points system as is could effected in the same way, if GW spent some serious time and labour doing it. You could hash out the points and then play/test them for each exponent/variable that has changed.

It is far less simple than you suspect...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem

To put it in layman's terms, there are untold billions of combinations, before factoring in granularity limitations. Do you really want to have to play with models costing 1000000 points, and others costing 1000213 points? What about knights that would cost 45321654987 points?

Because your system would need to factor all units between a Gaunt and a Gargant. Between a Knight and a Nightbringer. Between a Smash-Master and a Slannesh-Maulerfiend.

It is not impossible, but a Heuristic approach would likely work. The simplest one is.

Will your opponent allow you to play with it?

Yes? Good enough.

No? Try again.

Which is, to the best of my knowledge, how GW does it. They play a few games using the models they've built (because they like to build them that way) and then they give them rules, and between a few buds and a few suds they crack out a number for a unit.

Will people play the game they're presented?

Yes? Good enough.

No? Try again. See Age of Sigmar version 1.0. Wasn't good enough, so they tried again.

This same thing works on your bespoke unit creation. If you make a unit that is comparable to another unit, and cost it similarly, and find an open minded opponent, you'll likely get a Yes answer. It would be good enough.


Would you be able to provide an example? I bet I could crack out a number that *open minded* people would be willing to play against.

 greatbigtree wrote:
It is far less simple than you suspect...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem

To put it in layman's terms, there are untold billions of combinations, before factoring in granularity limitations. Do you really want to have to play with models costing 1000000 points, and others costing 1000213 points? What about knights that would cost 45321654987 points?

Because your system would need to factor all units between a Gaunt and a Gargant. Between a Knight and a Nightbringer. Between a Smash-Master and a Slannesh-Maulerfiend.

It is not impossible, but a Heuristic approach would likely work. The simplest one is.

Will your opponent allow you to play with it?

Yes? Good enough.

No? Try again.

Which is, to the best of my knowledge, how GW does it. They play a few games using the models they've built (because they like to build them that way) and then they give them rules, and between a few buds and a few suds they crack out a number for a unit.

Will people play the game they're presented?

Yes? Good enough.

No? Try again. See Age of Sigmar version 1.0. Wasn't good enough, so they tried again.

This same thing works on your bespoke unit creation. If you make a unit that is comparable to another unit, and cost it similarly, and find an open minded opponent, you'll likely get a Yes answer. It would be good enough.


Would you be able to provide an example? I bet I could crack out a number that *open minded* people would be willing to play against.

There are already untold number of combinations without a bespoke unit (billions is just an arbitrary number). That's not how you calculate these sorts of variations though, you use averages, variance's, slandered deviation etc. to mitigate the 'billions' as you say to quantify units and models. Its very easy especially with the small scales that we are working with BS 2+ to 6+ etc, it really isn't as vast as you think. GW just haven't gone to serious lengths to actually do that. Where you get pricing them at 10 to the 6th or 45321654987 is bizarre.