Fan-made points

[tychobi]

So we have proven that math is hard and the community will not agree on a method. The biggest obstacle for fan made points system is not the math, the points, or even the rules. Its the political hurdle of presenting a game that is not made by GW as "warhammer". Even a perfect "fix" will run into a huge block of fans that just want to play 40k.

[Scribe]

So we have proven that math is hard and the community will not agree on a method. The biggest obstacle for fan made points system is not the math, the points, or even the rules. Its the political hurdle of presenting a game that is not made by GW as "warhammer". Even a perfect "fix" will run into a huge block of fans that just want to play 40k.

 

True, which looking at other fandom's is just kinda weird, but it is what it is.

 

Easier instead to pull out an appeal to authority argument, or blame GW.

[Wulf Vengis]

Now you have 2 units, same weapons with different points cost because their output is different.

Except that the ADDITIONAL Wargear (Heavy Bolter in your example) is not where the DIFFERENCE between models is being made. The basic models are creating that difference. The LRBT has a ballistic skill 4 and the TC has a Ballistic Skill 3. It's apparent to me that the TC will (most likely) cost more points than the LRBT.

The heavy bolter is not to blame for the accuracy of the model equipped with it, or in other words the heavy bolter output is the same, the firing models have differing stats. Ergo the firing models should be priced differently.

 

So we have proven that math is hard and the community will not agree on a method. The biggest obstacle for fan made points system is not the math, the points, or even the rules. Its the political hurdle of presenting a game that is not made by GW as "warhammer". Even a perfect "fix" will run into a huge block of fans that just want to play 40k.

And those people can go play 40k as written.

 

Edit: I know well never come to a true resolution here, but i do enjoy creating these fixes. Even if we dont all agree. Keep them coming.

 

Edit 2: I'm not actually sure what a "TC" is off hand and am therefore afraid give an actual points value. Afterall a tankk should be more points than an individual soldier BUT that same soldiers unit MIGHT be more points than the tank.

Edited January 26, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[jarms48]

 

Except that the ADDITIONAL Wargear (Heavy Bolter in your example) is not where the DIFFERENCE between models is being made. The basic models are creating that difference. The LRBT has a ballistic skill 4 and the TC has a Ballistic Skill 3. It's apparent to me that the TC will (most likely) cost more points than the LRBT.

The heavy bolter is not to blame for the accuracy of the model equipped with it, or in other words the heavy bolter output is the same, the firing models have differing stats. Ergo the firing models should be priced differently.

 

I think this is a bad example. Differences of ability can be measured by points on vehicles. A better comparison is Imperial Guard infantry special weapons. For example: 

 

On a BS4+ model a melta gun and plasma gun is 5 points. While on a BS3+ model they're 10 points each. Which is completely fair. 

 

Going back to the Tank Commander and Leman Russ, the issue here just isn't points, but how Tank Orders work. Tank Orders only have a range of 6 inch and Tank Commanders only have 1 Tank Order. If they had their Tank Order range buffed to 18 inch (same as a Vox-caster) and were given 2 Tank Orders, then with the Tank Commanders current point difference of 45 points more than a standard Russ (as per MFM 2022) it might actually incentivise people to take more standard Russes. Though as long as Tank Orders don't change, Imperial Guard players will only ever take Tank Commanders. 

 

The other issue with Imperial Guard vehicles (and most other factions) is that all heavy weapons cost more on the vehicles than they do on the infantry. Why should a heavy bolter be 10 points on an infantry model and 15 points on a vehicle? Because that vehicle doesn't suffer a -1 to hit and can shoot it into combat? Okay, but why should I be forced to pay that tax for every single weapon and why isn't this simply factored into the vehicles cost? 

Edited January 27, 2022 by jarms48

[Wulf Vengis]

I think this is a bad example. Differences of ability can be measured by points on vehicles.

@Jams: I think you're saying my example was badly explained, if this is correct I can't disagree, but it seems in your statement you're agreeing with me, that the difference in abilities between the base models (in this case LRBT and LRTC) is or at least should be reflected in their standard points costs.

 

A better comparison is Imperial Guard infantry special weapons. For example:

On a BS4+ model a melta gun and plasma gun is 5 points. While on a BS3+ model they're 10 points each. Which is completely fair.

It seems fair on the surface, HOWEVER, you're already paying more points for the better BS in the base model why then charge an increased fee for the weapon? The weapon doesn't get more shots or better strength or AP for being equipped by the more skilled user. It only SEEMS better because the model equipped with it is better at using it.

 

Going back to the Tank Commander and Leman Russ, the issue here just isn't points, but how Tank Orders work. Tank Orders only have a range of 6 inch and Tank Commanders only have 1 Tank Order. If they had their Tank Order range buffed to 18 inch (same as a Vox-caster) and were given 2 Tank Orders, then with the Tank Commanders current point difference of 45 points more than a standard Russ (as per MFM 2022) it might actually incentivise people to take more standard Russes. Though as long as Tank Orders don't change, Imperial Guard players will only ever take Tank Commanders.

Again these Tank Orders have nothing to do with the Wargear on the tanks in question. Better tank orders SHOULD cause an increase in the base cost of the LRTC NOT the Wargear price. (I think we're in agreement here too.)

 

The other issue with Imperial Guard vehicles (and most other factions) is that all heavy weapons cost more on the vehicles than they do on the infantry. Why should a heavy bolter be 10 points on an infantry model and 15 points on a vehicle? Because that vehicle doesn't suffer a -1 to hit and can shoot it into combat? Okay, but why should I be forced to pay that tax for every single weapon and why isn't this simply factored into the vehicles cost?

Yeeahhh...that is a problem and I think a lot of people's comments on the varying metas* reflect exactly this. These differences SHOULD be reflected in the base costs of the vehicles in question and not the official Wargear costs.

 

I might bust out my 8th index and take a stab at the LRBT and LRTC. If you'd be interested in resolving those units I'll throw together some ideas and PM them to you.

 

*Varying Metas: by varying metas I mean all three types of play and people's battle reports based upon them.

 

So we have proven that math is hard and the community will not agree on a method. The biggest obstacle for fan made points system is not the math, the points, or even the rules. Its the political hurdle of presenting a game that is not made by GW as "warhammer". Even a perfect "fix" will run into a huge block of fans that just want to play 40k.

@Tychobi: This is all exactly 100% the truth. See my note below however for the easiest way to handle this.

 

NOTE: Again, I'm aware we can't resolve every issue without at least some input from GW (mainly codecies for armies that don't have them yet), and that we can't please everyone. But, like I've said before were not trying to please everyone. We only have to please ourselves and our immediate gaming buddies.

 

Psychological Note: I love this aspect of 40k, namely fixing the game GW has presented us (it might be my favorite part honestly). There's a little me dancing around in my head just singing and having a good time trying to throw out corrections that please at least one person. My previous points adjustments were literally just throw away, rapid fire examples. I'm losing sleep over this, but in a good way. I'm excited to be discussing and making home rules and points with everyone/anyone here.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[jarms48]

 

@Jams: I think you're saying my example was badly explained, if this is correct I can't disagree, but it seems in your statement you're agreeing with me, that the difference in abilities between the base models (in this case LRBT and LRTC) is or at least should be reflected in their standard points costs.

 

It seems fair on the surface, HOWEVER, you're already paying more points for the better BS in the base model why then charge an increased fee for the weapon? The weapon doesn't get more shots or better strength or AP for being equipped by the more skilled user. It only SEEMS better because the model equipped with it is better at using it.

 

To keep using the BS4+ and BS3+ special weapon comparison in Guard.

 

The reason it's fine here is a Scion is 9 points. For example, if we increased a Scions cost to 10 points but dropped a BS3+ plasma guns cost to 5 points that means we're now looking at a 60 point 5 man squad, rather than a 65 point 5 man squad. Which means we just effectively buffed them, made all other special weapons even less relevant (looking at the Hot-shot Volley Gun here which is fairly useful at the moment but completely redundant if the melta and plasma come down), and nerfed basic Scion squads. 

 

The same goes for Command Squads. Currently 65 points for 4 plasma or melta guns. If we say increased their base squad cost to 30 points (7.5 per model) then reduced plasma and melta to 5 points, then they'd be a 50 point squad. Again, we've just given them a massive buff.

 

For infantry it makes sense we tax the weapon here.

 

 

 

Again these Tank Orders have nothing to do with the Wargear on the tanks in question. Better tank orders SHOULD cause an increase in the base cost of the LRTC NOT the Wargear price. (I think we're in agreement here too.)

 

 

Tank Orders absolutely have something to do with wargear in the case of a Tank Commander. Because they only have 1 it might as well be an inbuilt ability for RR1 to Hit, or one-time -1 to Hit. 

 

If Tank Commanders had more incentive to actually order other vehicles, as I said having greater order range and minimum 2 orders. Then you'd be losing order efficeny by only taking Tank Commanders. Tank Commanders don't need to go up higher, they're already 45 points more than standard Russes now. 

 

 

I might bust out my 8th index and take a stab at the LRBT and LRTC. If you'd be interested in resolving those units I'll throw together some ideas and PM them to you.

 

*Varying Metas: by varying metas I mean all three types of play and people's battle reports based upon them.

 

You can check out the Guard wishlist thread, I've tossed around tons of ideas. Though, I'll put a quick summary here:

 

Leman Russ Tank Commanders: 45 points + cost of Leman Russ.

- Increase Tank Orders to 2. 

- Increase Tank Order range to 18.

 

 

Pask: 60 points + cost of Leman Russ.

- Increase Tank Order range to 18.

- Increase Tank Orders to 2. 

- Change Knight Commander to 1 free Tank Ace.

 

Leman Russ Tank (all point costs below include hull heavy bolter): 

- Battle Tank: 150 points.

- Demolisher: 150 points.

- Eradicator: 140 points. 

- Exterminator: 140 points. 

- Executioner: 140 points. 

- Punisher: 150 points.

- Vanquisher: 130 points.

 

As I said previously, I also don't believe heavy weapon costs should be more than the infantries. Which means giving sponsons to any of these vehicles would be 10 points cheaper than now. So a Battle Tank with sponson heavy bolters would be 170 points, not 180 points. 

[Wulf Vengis]

The reason it's fine here is a Scion is 9 points. For example, if we increased a Scions cost to 10 points but dropped a BS3+ plasma guns cost to 5 points that means we're now looking at a 60 point 5 man squad, rather than a 65 point 5 man squad. Which means we just effectively buffed them, made all other special weapons even less relevant (looking at the Hot-shot Volley Gun here which is fairly useful at the moment but completely redundant if the melta and plasma come down), and nerfed basic Scion squads.

This leads us to need to adjust the other weapons to match then. We wouldn't want to tinker with only the plasma guns. To keep the balance we would also adjust the hot-shot volley gun and any other weapons.

 

I think the base units need to be worked out before weapon points can be evaluated. Since these issues seem to be occurring when we actually apply the optional Wargear.

So for the command squad it seems the unit needs to be a base of 5 models for 50 points before optional Wargear is applied if we want to keep the balance. (Using my previous toss-out of 5 points for plasma.)

I should mention that I don't think Guard and Astartes would pay the same points cost for a plasma gun, but that all sub-factions within a codex would pay the same (needs to be evaluated before I dedicate anything to this however).

 

Tank Orders absolutely have something to do with wargear in the case of a Tank Commander. Because they only have 1 it might as well be an inbuilt ability for RR1 to Hit, or one-time -1 to Hit.

I've always felt tank orders should work like the old 5th edition Guard orders. The commander of the tank squadron spends the turn giving an order to the rest of the squadron. These would be useable at the cost of the commanding tanks ability to fire or some such drawback. Thereby giving each tank squadron a reason to take a commander.

 

I whole heartedly agree with your points adjustments to the LRBT and heavy weapons being cheaper on vehicles than infantry.

Edited January 27, 2022 by Wulf Vengis

[OldWherewolf]

A weapon should cost different points depending on how effective the model is, but the base model should not pay a premium for just BS, because BS2 and full re-rolls isn't worth anything if the model has no shooting weapons (for example, an Ork nob with 2 choppas).  Otherwise a HB on a model with a BS2 would cost the same as a HB on a model with a BS6, and that makes no sense.  Same for melee weapons, as a power sword on a guardsman is worth much less than a power sword on a Space Marine Captain, or a Power Fist on a guardsman and a PF on a knight would cost the same.

 

Incidently, this is what GW does right now for most models.  You pay for the platform (tank, character, etc.), and then add on the weapons (Battle Cannons, Power Swords

 

Conversely, you pay for durability separately than the weapons.  In 9th, this is a much smaller part of the equation, because 9th is so lethal that anything less than extreme durability is almost the same as no durability. 

[Dudley Nightshade]

This conversation has been a bit tricky to follow, so I apologize if I have missed where someone already suggested this.

 

It seems to me that the compromise between Wulf's and Orange Knight's viewpoints, which both appear to have a lot of merit, might be to apply additive math (Wulf's suggestion) to create each unit's profile, and then multiplicative math (which leads from Orange Knight's suggestion) for anything that modifies it.

 

This way, if a weapon gets AP -1, then its cost is based on some multiplier of the combination of Attacks and Strength on the unit's profile (rounded to the nearest whole number, or scale the points up). A power weapon would then cost less for a guardsman than a daemon prince.

 

The formulas for such a system would be hard to create, but once created, tweaking the balance becomes much easier. There are probably a lot of business reasons that GW might not want to create such a system, though. Can you imagine if 3rd parties were able to integrate proven, balanced units (up to and including entirely new factions) into the game? Such models wouldn't be tournament-legal, but if someone wanted to create a Hrud army, they would be playable and presumably fun in pick-up games. It might have the potential to effectively make the setting open source. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Brother Yroc

[Wulf Vengis]

I have a feeling that THIS is the reason GW has never revealed how they figure out the base points system to older editions of the game.

[Wulf Vengis]

Open source 40k...that sounds like a utopian dream land. (Loving sigh)

[Schlitzaf]

I have a feeling that THIS is the reason GW has never revealed how they figure out the base points system to older editions of the game.

Its actually bot terrible hard. Its basically for infantry you twke your codex basic dudebro. Each improve stat is +1 point. For the chassis. Weapons are set points globally. A power fist is more or less 8-10 points across every codex. And a unit shooting their oreferred targer earns 1/3 of their overall poijt value.

[jarms48]

 

This leads us to need to adjust the other weapons to match then. We wouldn't want to tinker with only the plasma guns. To keep the balance we would also adjust the hot-shot volley gun and any other weapons.

 

I think the base units need to be worked out before weapon points can be evaluated. Since these issues seem to be occurring when we actually apply the optional Wargear.

So for the command squad it seems the unit needs to be a base of 5 models for 50 points before optional Wargear is applied if we want to keep the balance. (Using my previous toss-out of 5 points for plasma.)

I should mention that I don't think Guard and Astartes would pay the same points cost for a plasma gun, but that all sub-factions within a codex would pay the same (needs to be evaluated before I dedicate anything to this however).

 

The Volley Gun is fine at the moment. 5 points for Heavy 4 S4 AP-2 with a lot of supporting buffs and stratagem support is really good for Scions. It doesn't need to change currently. The only special weapons that need to change are Sniper Rifle, Flamers, and Grenade Launchers. At least for the Imperial Guard. 

 

If we're only using points as a balancing metric, cause this thread is fan-made points. Then for the Imperial Guard Sniper Rifles should be 1 point, Grenade Launchers and Flamers should be 3 points. Which might make them more viable against plasma and melta. 

 

 

 

I should mention that I don't think Guard and Astartes would pay the same points cost for a plasma gun, but that all sub-factions within a codex would pay the same (needs to be evaluated before I dedicate anything to this however).

 

I never said they should, but a unit with the same ability to shoot as a Marine should be charged the same cost for a special weapon. A unit that has the same ability to fight as a marine should be charged the same cost for a melee weapon. 

 

 

I whole heartedly agree with your points adjustments to the LRBT and heavy weapons being cheaper on vehicles than infantry.

 

No no, my whole point is they should be the same as the infantries. Not cheaper. 

Edited January 28, 2022 by jarms48