Tactical Command
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=29562		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  The Bissler [ Tue May 19, 2015 10:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Hi, thought I'd let you know that I tried out the points formula for our game tonight. My opponent took Marines and included a Warlord Titan that cost about 1100 points. I opted to load up my army with cheap infantry, tank & superheavy companies but no artillery, Leviathans or Capitol Imperialis due to the expensive cost of these particular units. When we set up it looked as though my force was treble the size of his. Despite many good rolls and heavy casualties for the IG there was no way for the Marines to deal with such overwhelming numbers.
Author:  The Bissler [ Tue May 19, 2015 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
It's also worth mentioning that after my opponent had finished moving all of his units I still had a massive 18 activations to take. On this evidence the formula will need a lot more work. Sorry I don't have something more positive to report back Magnus. My opponent took a few short videos to illustrate the differences in the force sizes, hopefully he'll get the chance to share these here at some point,
Author:  primarch [ Tue May 19, 2015 11:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Hi!

Bissler, did you use the old points value for units with hit location templates or the newer ones?

It makes it a difference.

Also, without a comparative force analysis its hard to analyze properly.

That a larger force has more activations than the other is already present in the standard Gold rules. Depending on the armies facing each other it can be quite large (even under standard Gold costs).

I think it also underscores that tactics need to adapt. It was too easy for marines to overwhelm a guard army under the Gold (and previous) formats. A horde army will always prevail over a smaller force if the smaller force remains static.

I'll have more clear thoughts once I see the force opposition (as well if tweak 3 or tweak 3.2/3.25 was used).

Primarch
Author:  MagnusIlluminus [ Wed May 20, 2015 4:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Any feedback is good feedback, don't worry about it being "positive". It would not surprise me any if Infantry are still a bit to inexpensive, but as Primarch said above, knowing what version's values were used is very important as is seeing the exact listing of forces. If you could include that data in whatever battle report you post, that would help.
Author:  The Bissler [ Wed May 20, 2015 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
IG Force list:

Tactical Company. 296
Assault Company: 326
Heavy Company: 310
Gorgon Tactical Company: 446
Rough Rider Company: 496
Imperial Bike Company: 343
Predator Company: 267
Vindicator Company: 255
Baneblade Company: 471
Shadowsword Company: 580
Stormhammer Company: 564

I got the calculator out & discovered that when I added them up late on one night last week that I seem to have omitted to add in the Bike Company. Apologies to Craig for this, especially as the Bikes did play a part in taking down one flank of the Marine attack. It's probably worth mentioning that the Gorgon Tactical Company was an irrelevance so I could have afforded to drop them and not really affected the outcome of the battle other than the extra activations I had would have reduced to 15.
Author:  Craigm999 [ Wed May 20, 2015 9:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Posted more detail on the FB thread, but here's my list here for completeness too (plus it makes my look less like i'm dodging work by posting here from the computer than using my phone for FB :) )

My thoughts were that i should have ditched the Warlord in favour of something like an assault company and more land raiders, as they would have probably been more effective, given me more activation and not been such a bullet magnet.

all in it wasn't that one sided (in fact i led in VPs after the first turn) but once the horde got within range it didn't take long to wipe the marines off the board.

i don't think my tactics were too flawed, I used the speed advantage and deployed troops deep in using thunderhawks, which were then able to fly around almost unchallenged (unfortunately some bad rolls on my part and good saves on Gordons meant their ordinance was pretty ineffective, but hey-ho!)

I'd be happy to try another few games using this forumla to see if we can find a way to get a more balanced game from it, as it does encourage the use of some underused troops, which i like!

Unit Cost
Battle Coy w/Thawks 1213
Land Raider Coy 568
Terminiator Det w/LR 293
Attack Bike: 167
Land Speeder (5): 245
Land Speeder (5): 245
Vindicator 120
Whirlwinds 127

Warlord Hull 619
Landing Pad w/Speeder 87
Chain fist 38
Quake Cannon 269
Gatling Blaster 34



Total 4025
Author:  scream [ Wed May 20, 2015 9:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Craigm999 wrote:

Warlord Hull 619
Landing Pad w/Speeder 87
Chain fist 38
Quake Cannon 269
Gatling Blaster 34


I thought that Landing Pad only works with weapons that can do indirect barrage but Quake Cannon can only do direct fire so can not benefit from the Landing Pad Line of Sight...
Author:  Craigm999 [ Wed May 20, 2015 10:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
it does - but i had painted one up and i was damn well going to use it! :)

plus, you get a snazzy little speeder to harass the enemy with and take objectives.
Author:  scream [ Wed May 20, 2015 10:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Craigm999 wrote:
it does - but i had painted one up and i was damn well going to use it! :)

plus, you get a snazzy little speeder to harass the enemy with and take objectives.


OK, I understand now ;)
Author:  Craigm999 [ Wed May 20, 2015 11:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
The Bissler wrote:
IG Force list:

Tactical Company. 296
Assault Company: 326
Heavy Company: 310
Gorgon Tactical Company: 446
Rough Rider Company: 496
Imperial Bike Company: 343
Predator Company: 267
Vindicator Company: 255
Baneblade Company: 471
Shadowsword Company: 580
Stormhammer Company: 564



6100pts in old money! :o

Just costing up a Ad-Mech force for the next time we play using the formula, similar to the IG i'm about 1200 points less than using Gold values, so could be a bit more balanced size wise at least depending on what you want to take?
Author:  Char B1 bis [ Wed May 20, 2015 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Hi,

Not to be a glutton; but are you going to do the points formula costs for the chaos Iron Warriors and Black Legions?

Thanks for all you've done! :)

Pat
Author:  The Bissler [ Wed May 20, 2015 6:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
Craigm999 wrote:
The Bissler wrote:
IG Force list:

Tactical Company. 296
Assault Company: 326
Heavy Company: 310
Gorgon Tactical Company: 446
Rough Rider Company: 496
Imperial Bike Company: 343
Predator Company: 267
Vindicator Company: 255
Baneblade Company: 471
Shadowsword Company: 580
Stormhammer Company: 564



6100pts in old money! :o

Just costing up a Ad-Mech force for the next time we play using the formula, similar to the IG i'm about 1200 points less than using Gold values, so could be a bit more balanced size wise at least depending on what you want to take?


Sheeeeeeiiit! I knew it would have been worth more under old rules but not that much more!!! :o

So far as next match up I think I may deliberately put the shoe on the other foot and use either Marines or Eldar. I'd really like to see if there is anything I could do with these tried and tested favourites of mine against such overwhelming odds.
Author:  MagnusIlluminus [ Wed May 20, 2015 6:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
The posted army lists seem to be primarily using Tweak3 values, except for the Battle Company with Thunderhawks. The value on that is from the "Expanded Formations" I did some time ago and have not updated since. Thus those values are out of date and the formations should not have been used. I guess I did not make that clear. I'll have to poke at that and see what it would cost now, at some later point.

_____

I am planning on working out the secondary Chapters, Craftworlds, etc at some point. I worked up the Space Wolves list on request a few versions ago, but like the Expanded Formations, that list is now out of date.

I actually have values worked up for the specific Black Legion formations, as I'm using that faction in an ongoing campaign. As of V0.325, they are:
Century: 325
Battle Century: 328
Assault Century: 284
Obliterator Squad: 56
Author:  Matty_C [ Wed May 20, 2015 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
How much did the activation count difference come into play here?
If you had used the non-evolution rule set do you think it would have been so one sided. I know that's a difficult question to answer, but I'm thinking that the massive difference in activations is the issue, which is more important in evolution than in ne5/gold, so adjusting points to balance might be required in one system, but not so much in others.
Then again, army selection is going to be different now, as new units become viable, and other units become more valuable, depending on what the opponent brings, as their army selection changes too.
Food for thought anyway.
Edit: did you play that command units have to be activated along with a detachment? Things like that might make a difference, as well as taking a warlord in an activation count light army, against an activation count heavy army. :P
Author:  Char B1 bis [ Wed May 20, 2015 11:38 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: NE 6 Revision Points Formula Comparison File
@MI

Thanks for the Black Legion.
Can't wait for Iron Warriors!

Thanks again,

Pat
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/