Hi!

Nice update!

The fine tuning is really resolving a lot of the fringe cases.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

In looking at a few things, I realized that I've been doing something wrong. To date, I have (apparently) been assuming that the cost of Damages Buildings has been included with the base template cost for any barrage-type weapon, and adjusting when they cannot. This is backwards, as I should be using Direct fire as the baseline and adding value to those weapons that can fire Indirectly as well.

Sigh.

Thus I'll be going back through the factions I had done for V0.43 and adjusting for this. Now I'm just as glad that I haven't posted any of them as yet. Sorry for all the delays on this update.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Finally done with V0.43. I should be updating the various "Points Formula values for ..." threads soon, depending on when I can find the time to type them up.

OP updated with a few more Weapon Special Abilities.

The models with weapons that count as "Artillery" have (mostly) increased in value as I am now applying the modifiers for Damages Buildings and ability to fire Indirect where applicable. Some models were difficult to decide on. I'll start a new thread to discuss that just as soon as I type up my thoughts on that. These will also be apparent once I post the complete list of all weapons.

As a side note, Magnus the Red's Beam of Power is no longer the most costly weapon in the game.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi!

Once the army lists are updated I will update the master cost file comparison file accordingly.

Thanks!

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

That is all of the current lists updated to V0.43, so go ahead and update the document.

The only lists not yet updated to V0.43 are the Space Wolf list and the "expanded formations" that I did a long time ago.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi!

Thanks for the heads up!

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

Hi

A friend of mine brought up the new points system when playing epic over the weekend. We talked about why special abilities are a fixed cost and not a function of pinning classes or some other indicator.

As an example Hard to hit is statically costed at 15pts but i would say that the utility of hard to hit is different when placed on a Titan than some other smaller unit.

I have not been able to find the reason behind this, can any one give me the general idea behind this fixed costing of special abilities?

Best
Jens

Hi!

That's a very interesting observation. I will let Magnus tackle this one, since he knows best the rationalizations behind the formula.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

The "reason" behind fixed costs for most SAs was expediency. We got those values hammered out early in the design process and they have (mostly) not changed since. I have been planning to go through them again and re-evaluate them, but just have not done so yet. Do note that many SA are already assigned to specific parts, like Skimmer and Fear.

If you - or anyone - feels that the value of an ability needs altering, especially if the view is because of play-testing, then please mention it. I welcome all (constructive) advice about any aspect of the formula.

To address your specific comment, do you think that Hard-To-Hit should perhaps be a multiplier to Armor Save? To the entire model's cost? Something else? On the other hand, perhaps it should still have a fixed cost, just have one for Titans / Praetorians / models with a hit location template and one cost for all other models.
________________

On a different note, I have begun applying the current formula to the various Marine Chapters, and will continue along with this until everything in the current books have values. Look for postings for these soonish.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi

Thanks for the answer.

Giving feedback is, at the current point, rather difficult since the information and reasoning is spread all over the place and there is no master implementation (spreadsheet or otherwise that I can find) of the points system that one can get to try out various alternatives. This is not a complaint but rather an observation that says that there is a barrier of entry.

With that said I think that special abilities increases the function of the given weapon platform and should be a factor to final total cost. Meaning that more expensive weapon platforms becomes proportional better by special abilities. Each special ability should carry its own factor value. Again I have no easy way of checking this idea out, but that is my current reasoning.

Best
Jens

I was listening to a podcast about the points values of forgeworld 30k units, and they talked about special rules points costs.
This was a gamer trying to replicate the points cost system, rather than a forgeworld representative, but he had based his observations on a statistically valid population.
What he found was:
The points cost of the first special rule a unit had was 3 points.
The points cost of the second special rule a unit had was 2 points.
The points cost of the third special rule a unit had was 1 point.
The points cost of the fourth special rule a unit had was 3 points.
The points cost of the fifth special rule a unit had was 2 points.
Etc. etc.

I loved the simplicity of the approach and naturally I thought of the great work Magnus has done here and if it would benefit from something similar.
The points formula as it stands now is very complex. In my opinion it might be overly complex, to the point of being too difficult to use, and lacks transparency. However all is not lost!
One of the main causes of this is how special rules are calculated. By streamlining that part of the formula it becomes a lot more user friendly.

So bearing in mind the method outlined above, how would people feel about trying out the following?
The first special rule a unit has adds 30% to it's base cost.
The second special rule a unit has adds 20% to it's base cost.
The third special rule a unit has adds 10% to it's base cost.
The fourth special rule a unit has adds 30% to it's base cost.
The fifth special rule a unit has adds 20% to it's base cost.
Etc etc.

An approach like that would be much simpler to implement and would be fairly transparent in how it is applied.

Thoughts?

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/

All pertinent information about the formula in it's current state is contained in the first two posts in this thread. [Though, I will be updating that soon with a few SA I had to add for some of the odder Marine Chapters.] While reading through this thread and the older thread could be enlightening as to the process, it should not be necessary.

True, there is not as yet an easily usable UI for the formula. I have thought about looking into how to make something to do that, but it hasn't been high enough on my (long) list of things that need doing to get done as yet. I do have a spreadsheet file that I personally use to put values to models and formations, and small parts of it are even automated with simple formulas. It is not automated to the point of "enter model stats -- get cost" however, and does require the user (me) to manually type in a lot of stuff, including all of the formulas. Well, I can copy-paste a few things here and there, but most things require tweaking anyway, so I type most things anyway. While I could share that, and have shared the Marines tab a couple of times, it doesn't quite feel ready. Still, if people want to see it I can post it at some point, though it may be too large for this forum to accept.

Someone did try to make a Google document to do exactly that, but it was while the formula was still actively changing, thus the person seem to have lost interest. I was at one point trying to poke at that, but I've forgotten how that was going.

Um, your second paragraph does not make a lot of sense. Not all Special Abilities directly affect Weapons. As far as I can tell, all of the ones that do affect Weapons, do already affect the cost of the weapon that it applies to and are all multipliers (the list at the end of section E). The remaining ones, to me anyway - and Primarch agreed at the time - all seem to act independently of the rest of the functions of the Model.

For example, Combat Leader. This ability has the exact same effect regardless of what model has it. It does not affect any other function or feature of the model that has it. Thus to me it should have a fixed cost.

As a note, recently some of the Special Abilities (from Section F) were decided to affect the ability of the whole model and were given multiplier status for the whole model value. See the short list just after the main list. The list that includes 'Infiltrate'. At the time that this was done, it was asked publicly if anyone thought that any others should be included, but nobody posted any others.

All of the abilities in Section F have their own values, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying that they should all have values. Could you be more clear on that?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

That could work wonderfully IF - and only if - all of the Special Abilities in question had the same value. In my opinion they do not, thus it would not work. Also, a couple of Special Abilities costs must vary from model to model due to it working differently. Primarily that is about Transport.

The formula lacks transparency? In what way?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Yes, that is correct, and then there is all the reasoning that is spread out. Once again that is just my observation.




Ok, thanks for the information.



No my paragraf makes perfect sense. You read "weapon", I write "weapon platform", besides the odd brigde layer and few others everything in epic is platforms for carrying weapons. But now we are splitting hairs and that was not my intention.


No but putting combat leader on a unit, that has a lot more staying power, e.g. a titan, for the obvious example using the largest unit in the game, make combat leader worth more gamewise that when put on a infantry stand. The reason for this is that the titan will simply be able to support longer due to its staying power.


I see that you asked the question 3/8-15, are you arguing that the window of changes is closed if one did not respond then? I have seen the list and once more have not found the reasoning behind way it ended up that particular way. Any way, Hard to hit is not on that list and thats actually still my main question. Is it really believed that Hard to Hit is worth same (15pts) gamewise no matter the unit it is placed on?


Yes you are absolutely right, i mean different factor cost, but as section F is now thats a moot point. Thank for correcting that.

There is another "if".
IF we were willing to accept the loss of detail for simplicity, practicality, expediency etc.

I believe it lacks transparency because of its complexity. In my humble opinion.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing mind you, just an opinion based on using the formula a fair bit a while ago. If people want the formula to have that level of detail then have at it.
Bearing in mind games are in the thousands of points, I'm not sure it's worth it personally.

Because I still have a spreadsheet calculating points for some new units I did up a while ago, I might try copying it and implementing the dodgy special rule calculation I posted above to see what actual differences it makes. Mainly to satisfy my own curiosity.

_________________
.'.
http://ragged-they-kill.blogspot.com.au/