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'm interested in examples of equations, systems, programs, algorithms, whatever that calculate the points for a model or unit based on the profile. I'm interested mostly in ones that reference older versions of 40K, but any miniatures battle system would be of interest. Any links would be appreciated. The only ones I can come up with at the moment are the VDR rules from chapter approved and one from FASA's Vor the Maelstrom....

Thanks!

I've tried to reverse-engineer some, and there really aren't any that work. Mordheim/Necromunda and Rogue Trader had flat cost per stat, but those break super easily.

Yeah. I'm pretty sure they just look at other similar units and go with their guts. Which, honestly, isn't terrible. Any such algorithm would want to factor in things like unit durability, weapon availability, synergies between stats, etc. It would get very complex and probably result in a number with a lot of decimal points. Which would still only be accurate if they weighed the value of various factors "correctly." And then you end up having to round that decimal point to a whole number anyway. So in the end, comparing a new datasheet to an existing datasheet and making an educated guess at points cost isn't the worst way to do things. Especially now that they can update point costs relatively easily.

I came across something similar in a different thread and it might be close enough to what you are looking for.
In 3rd edition Tyranids codex you could sort of build your own units for a certain number of squads.
And I remember something from when I was actually playing 3rd about vehicle design rules. I remember the local store put on a 'race' contest between half a dozen players who had to submit a vehicle using those rules or a standard vehicle. 250 points I think and you could shoot each other and skip through dense cover to other parts of the track.

Algorithms really aren't that viable.

They can kinda work in simple games, but not complex ones.

One of my favourite games, Blood Red Skies, uses an algorithm. It's a simple points-buy for stats/traits. The game has 4 stats and a dozen traits, only two of which may be applied at a time. So extremely simple compared to 40k when listbuilding.
Even then, I don't find the algorithm to be perfect. It works okay in the "middle", but once you start statting aircraft at the extremes it starts to throw out off-results.

One of the guiding factors of why a simple algorithm doesn't work is that stats are never linear and are hardly consistent.
Using 40k has an example; improving a unit's strength characteristic doesn't do a lot unless their weapon skill is also strong. Improving their weapon skill also improves the value of their strength skill. Same for movement.
Durability bonuses also improve the value of offensive bonuses due to sticking around longer.
Essentially, improved stats has an exponential/multiplicative effect rather than additive.

Also, that's limits to how much of their stats a unit can use at any one time. If you have really good ballistic skill and really good weapon skill, one of those is going to fall by the way-side and not get full value because you're busy doing the other thing.
Which means having high stats for both is less than twice as good as having high stats for just one.

One Page Rules uses/used an algorithm. The initial version was horribly imbalanced with elite units being way undercosted relative to weak units, as the creator had used a simple points-buy and not factored in the above. I believe they still use the same system, but now "fudge the numbers" that the calculator spits out to improve their accuracy.

That's what you need to do. Algorithms are fine for getting you in the ballpark, but the final score needs as much art as science to be correct.

In 3rd ed fantasy GW stated that points cost are meaningless. A dragon they said cost 1000 points ..the same as 333 goblins but 333 goblins cant destroy a dragon !
I play 7th ed 40k and you can see that the points cost are based around the cost of a basic SM.

Thanks for the leads - I'll look into them.
My theory is that a complex enough calculation could do a good job, at least to the point that if everyone was using the same system and you put a few guard rails on it, it would let you build rules for any figure you wanted. It certainly wouldn't be simple, I'm more just looking for a starting point.

 kestral wrote:
Thanks for the leads - I'll look into them.
My theory is that a complex enough calculation could do a good job, at least to the point that if everyone was using the same system and you put a few guard rails on it, it would let you build rules for any figure you wanted. It certainly wouldn't be simple, I'm more just looking for a starting point.

Theoretically, a complex enough formula could get you really close to an ideal points cost. But then you'd still get thrown off by decimal points and the meta. So like, your model with a Damage 2 weapon ends up being 20 points per model or whatever, but the prevalence of 2 Wound marine units in your local meta is going to mean that you get even more value out of it than the algorithm suggests. Or you get a perfectly calculated cost for a new transport you've designed, but melta weapons are really popular in the meta and happen to be really good at wiping it out, thus throwing off your custom model's value. Or the algorithm decides that the perfect price per model is 5.5 points. So you either price it at 5 or 6 points. Which means you're either over or under paying by 0.5 points per model. So when you spam three units of 30 of them, you're paying either 45 too many or too few points.

So with all that in mind, you might be better off just looking at a similar unit and using it as a starting point rather than taking the time to work out the ultimate algorithm. 40k isn't a perfectly balanced game, so making units that are just close enough to perfect balanced to feel reasonable is the real goal.

As others have said, there are so many variables and other balancing factors that an algorithm just isn't really a workable solution.

Historically GW seem to have balanced around a few basic units using them as the baseline and then working things out from there.

Its usually been the basic guardsman, basic tactical marine, basic rhino/predator/russ tank.

This edition seems to have been completely off the mark though as they released the basic spacemarine and have then just skyrocketed the power of everything and don't seem to know what it is they are attempting to balance around. Perhaps they have a new process that has go completely off the rails.

think the closest you'll get is one of those childrens velco dart boards, works best on Friday afternoon after a few pints

You could probably make one for Infantry. Use Gretchins as the 5 point floor, maybe raise Cultists and Conscripts to 6 points, then Guardsmen as 7 points. Then use the algorithm to base model costs from there.

If you start with the base unit (a 5pt guardsmen for example) you can work your way up.

You cant do flat points for everything though.

Str and toughness can be flat rates, but saves and mobility are % increases.

Its also alot easier if you point weapons seperately from the units they are on (especially with ranged weapons).

Also remember that cramming more and more stats on a single model should eventually provide a discount, as there is more potential to loose that model from a single hit of a really strong weapon. That and dice variables favor more dice over higher quality dice.

You can't really point weapons separately though.

A Space Marine gets a lot more value out of a plasmagun than a Guardsman does, because not only is the Space Marine more durable to keep that gun firing longer, but they're also more accurate to get more hits with that weapon.
The gulf is perhaps even more obvious if you compare say an Assault Marine Sergeant's Powersword to a Guardsman Sergeant's Powersword.

ahh but that where your wrong. A marine might be a better shot, but thats why he's paying extra points on his data sheet. Theres absolutely no reason for a lazcannon to cost more in either dex.

Costing them differently in every book is what has led to what we have now, where an eradicator pays a certain amount for a multi-melta, then aeldari get a far better mult-melta on a better platform for only a few extra points.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
ahh but that where your wrong. A marine might be a better shot, but thats why he's paying extra points on his data sheet. Theres absolutely no reason for a lazcannon to cost more in either dex.

Costing them differently in every book is what has led to what we have now, where an eradicator pays a certain amount for a multi-melta, then aeldari get a far better mult-melta on a better platform for only a few extra points.

A marines doesn't cost more because special/heavy weapons are more effective on him though. They are costed around their basic free loadout.

The same or same-y weapons costing differently from multiple codexes isn't an issue, in fact it might even be a good thing. Only thing that matters is the balance between the factions.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
ahh but that where your wrong. A marine might be a better shot, but thats why he's paying extra points on his data sheet. Theres absolutely no reason for a lazcannon to cost more in either dex.

Costing them differently in every book is what has led to what we have now, where an eradicator pays a certain amount for a multi-melta, then aeldari get a far better mult-melta on a better platform for only a few extra points.

It does matter though, getting +1BS with a lascannon is much more significant than +1 BS with a lasgun.
Because a 25% boost in the accuracy of a single lasgun results in negligible increase in damage, a 25% boost in the accuracy of a lascannon is much more damage.
So paying a flat rate for +BS is either over-paying if they have a lasgun or under-paying if they have a lascannon, or a little bit of both.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
ahh but that where your wrong. A marine might be a better shot, but thats why he's paying extra points on his data sheet. Theres absolutely no reason for a lazcannon to cost more in either dex.

Costing them differently in every book is what has led to what we have now, where an eradicator pays a certain amount for a multi-melta, then aeldari get a far better mult-melta on a better platform for only a few extra points.

You might think that, but experience has shown otherwise. Theres a reason why GW had to go back to the Astra Militarum and price plasma and melta guns differently depending on whether they were on a model with BS3+ vs a model with BS4+.

And its more than that, a pistol weapon on a model that moves 6"/turn is far less valuable than it is on a model that can move 18". A lascannon on a model that has 1 wound at T3 and a 6+ armor save is not as valuable as a lascannon on a model with T8 and a 3+ invul with 10 wounds.