You want some examples? Fine.

Raptors

4 base raptor formation with a character = 140 points.
4 base assault marine formation with a character = 225 points.

Raptors have better FF than the assault marines.

Neal Hunt proposes a drop in points of 15% for chaos relative to codex marines to account for the loss of TSKNF, and this figure has been widely accepted. That would give us a figure of 168.75, or roughly 170 points, before we consider the extra FF bonus. A fairer cost would therefore be around 190-200 points for the formation.

Patching over this with a 0-1 limit is no solution at all, as it fails to scale for smaller or larger games. In a 1000 point game a 0-1 limit is of no consequence, (allowing the raptors to dominate) but in a 10000 point game it's a highly artificial limit. Why would there only be one raptor formation in a huge army? Does the background suggest this? I don't think so.

Conclusion: Raptors are underpriced.

Free characters

What is the rational for having characters, including the supreme commander, costing no points? The background suggests that armies are always led by a great chaos warlord, yes, but why does that mean he should be free? By all means make characters a compulsary choice, but make them cost points!

The only other official army with a similar mechanic is the free supreme commander of the Orks, but that was brought in as a counter-balance to the 3+ initiative, which leaves orks extremely vulnerable to failed initiative tests. What weakness in the BL list counterbalances the free characters?

Other formations

Here are a sample of the costs comparisons of other formations compared to those calculated using the 15% suggestion, and paying the same cost for characters as codex marines.

Bikes: Cost 300    Should cost 322
Retinue with Rhinos: Cost 315     Should cost 390
4 Terminators with character: Cost 260    Should cost 326.25 (the different weapons could result in a slightly lower cost though.)

Note that much of this difference is due to the free characters.

If neccesary I can convert more costs, but I think I've made my point. Just about everything is underpriced compared to regular marines if you use the formula suggested by Neal Hunt.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

Several quick points here:

Raptors are underpointed. They are one of the units already assigned a higher points cost.

If the BL list is generally underpointed, one would expect it to do disproportionately well in general e.g. in tournaments. Is this the case?

Note that while Neal's estimate for the worth of TSKNF is probably generally accurate, bear in mind that it is a relative value. Very small units such as 4 assault marines are vastly superior to 4 raptors because of TSKNF, whereas if you have much larger formations (10+ units) the difference is fairly minor - by the time TSKNF would make a difference the formation would be seriously mauled (and suppressed) anyway.

Lastly, the formations absolutely should include the cost of the character (for variable size formations this means paying a premium for larger formations, which is absolutely as it should be). I'm not saying they're all pointed correctly, just that there's no reason that there should be any free characters beyond the Supreme Commander. Now, whether Chaos should have a free Supreme Commander is a separate issue from the Lords that are included in formation costs.

The problem is that currently the characters really are free. As in not costed at all. Why can't they literally cost points? It's so much fairer to pay 50 points for a character than to pay less for a small formation or more for a large one.

And yes, as TRC mentioned earlier in the thread, BL are indeed doing disproportionataly well in tournaments, even without 3 feral abominations.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

So you picked a formation that we have already discussed repricing and then compared it to a unit in an army that has a special ability that allows it to ignore blast markers that the Raptors don't have?

Not a good start.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

No they aren't.

CSM formations don't have an option to not include a Warlord. It is part of the base cost of the formation. They can't not take it so what is the exact point of giving someone an additional point cost to add to their formation for something they have no option other than to take?

Its part of the cost of the formation... it isn't "free". It was originally calculated as part of the formation cost and the fact that it doesn't have a separate point entry does not mean that the cost hasn't been included or that thought hasn't been given to the Warlord in the formation.

Why do people assume that someone we just tacked on the Warlord character just because there isn't an price entry for the character.

Regarding the 0-1 limit for the Raptor. I don't think anyone is happy with it but that is what we did given the original deadline we had. The fact that it doesn't "scale" well is irrelevant. The army lists are intended to be balanced and playable using the GT scenario and there was no mandate to balance the lists at any other point cost. This "scale" issue is another red herring that gets tossed around as well

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

And what does this mean exactly?

The fact that something of potentially similar value in one army list has a different cost is not in and of itself useful.

You may see why there is a constant request for people to test the army list. Testing tells us where problems are.

Simple cross army comparisons are usually meaningless unless you put the time and effort into them that Neal does.

And even then Neal's analysis is usually used as a way to fine tune costs that we think or know are problematic. Its a guide, not a computational tool.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

So you are so utterly entrenched in your position that even when shown the figures to prove how undercosted units are you will dismiss them offhand, without even considering them.

I hope Lord Inquisitor takes a more responsible viewpoint than you did.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

And there are a set of changes that have been proposed that have not had any tournament experience and probably won't. Hence the need to playtest the changes

I've suggested updating the tournament tweaks list to move the Assault Co. to the Titans and Aircraft section (as per the changes suggested) as a simple tweak to help balance the list.

The thing is though that you make it sound as if nothing is going on and there has been a lot of work done and a lot of conversations and changes suggested.

Changes that need to be tested.

So perhaps instead of spending your time writing comparisons of the point cost of the Raptor to the Assault Marines you could get instead go through the suggested changes and play some games and report on those.

And perhaps not use Marine Drop Pod lists as your opponent :-)

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

No, I compared like to like. It always makes sense to compare to similar units in other lists, to give a guidance for where to draw the points line. It's a much better idea than simply drawing numbers out of the hat, which seems to have been the method employed to cost raptors currently.

Raptors don't have TSKNF, but they do have +1FF. Sure, TSKNF is better, but it's not worth 85 points and the loss of a point of FF.

You seriously overvalue TSKNF if you think otherwise.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I have no issue with the changes going on; they are moving the list in the right direction, though not nearly radically enough.

What I have issue with are those who seem to think there's nothing wrong with the list, and blindly deny that it is overpowered.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

So if I disagree with you I am "entrenched in my position"? So my only option is to agree with you? Well that leaves me a lot of options for forming my own opinions doesn't it?

Maybe you could try to actually do what people have suggested for pages and pages and test the changes suggested to the list instead of wasting people's time with bogus comparative methods that have been pointed out as being invalid and not of much use for years. Literally. You can imagine how tired we get of seeing this same method trotted out as if it was somehow unique and valid.

It isn't.

Its not my problem that instead of doing something useful like testing the suggested changes you attempt to use a comparison model that not a lot of people think is useful.

Popping some numbers into a message is not "proof". At best it is a discussion point.

Testing is what we need. Not number crunching.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

Because you did? Or at least it certainly seems that way?

Otherwise, why does a small formation pay less for that character than a large formation?

If you wanted the character included in the base cost, why not do something like.

X formation - 4 bases of X + a character 200 points, may add up to 4 extra X bases for 30 points each.

There you go, fixed character costs in a variable sized formation.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

The discussion point is that when using the formula proposed by Neal, all the formations come out as underpriced. If some came in under and some over then perhaps you'd have a point, but as far as I can tell they all come in under. I'm aware it's only a guide, but that guide is showing a worrying underpricing trend.

Is that not worthy of discussion? Consideration even?

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

If I thought there was nothing wrong with the list then I wouldn't be testing LI's changes would I?

Don't assume that because I don't follow the same party line as you do that I don't think there isn't room for change in the list.

No-one here doesn't think that the list doesn't need work so quite being a twit and tossing around obviously bogus remarks like that.

It does nothing to help build any credibility for you.

Can I ask you if you have tested any of the proposed changes to the list?

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.