Hi!

I know what you mean Matty_C.

However we have tried simple solutions for close to 20 years now. None have worked since. All amount to no more than "educated guess" or "opinion".

That is why the issues still persist.

I have longed for someone to tackle this in the Magnus has. Level the playing and resolve the ultimate question of "what has value".

Nothing is perfect, nor will it ever be. However its forte is that is is applied uniformly and without bias. If you get something "wrong" it doesn't matter as much because everything gets applied to the same standard.

Also, knowing the average net epic player, no one really "cares" how the cost is reached, only that it is reached and it is "fair" to all elements and all armies.

The "nuts and bolts" of the formula only matter to those whom wish to create things that don't exist yet (or won't exist). Most only what a value to use with ease.

Given the work on the organizational templates on Facebook and how it will ultimately work, it will be no more onerous than it is currently, but with the customization, lack of rigidity that Gold has now.

Easy is always better as long as it works. When easy doesn't work it usually means the tasks requires a deeper, more complex answer.

Primarch

_________________
Primarch


The Primarchload
Magnetized Titans Tutorial
Net Epic Gold
Heresy Rules

@alsted:

I am a very literally-minded person. You did write "weapon platform" and that IS what I read, but that specific term is not utilized anywhere within NetEpic. Please do not create new terminology and then expect it to be universally understood without explanation. Thus your paragraph (proper spelling please) does not make sense in the way you intended. Thanks for clarifying.

Yes, the reasoning is all spread out. I don't understand what you expect me to do about that.

No. My point is that Combat Leader works in the same way no matter what model has it. The cost of an Ability depends on the function of the ability itself. The staying power of a model is covered by the cost for its Armor Save, thus a Titan will cost more than Infantry because of that, and other factors. If the staying power of a model is irrelevant to the function of the ability, then it should remain irrelevant to the cost.

If we did alter the system in the way that you seem to be suggesting, that is that the cost of an Ability is higher due to the Armor Save value of the model, then the same adjustment would also have to be made to the cost of Weapons as the same reasoning can apply to them. That is, the longer the model can last in the game, the more the weapon should cost because it will be fired more often. Possibly also to Movement as the longer it lasts, the further it can move. For that matter, Move cost would have to adjust Weapons as it can be seen as increasing the area they can be used within. At this point, we'd have to change all of the factors from adding together to multiplying and costs would skyrocket for all models.

I think that none of these adjustments should be made. How do other people feel?

Wow, please do not put words in my mouth, I don't react well to that. All I said was that the question was asked, not that comments were closed. It is reasonable to assume that since you had not commented at the time that you had no opinion at that time. It is also possible that you did not see that post. I do not know.

Yes, I still think that Hard To Hit should have a fixed cost as the function of the ability does not depend on any other factor of the model. In my mind, it has the EXACT same benefit for a Titan as it does for Infantry. Obviously, you disagree. How do other people feel about this?


@Matty_C

Personally, I am not interested in losing any detail from the system. How do other people feel?

We must be using different definitions of "transparency". As far as I am aware, complexity does not affect transparency.


@everyone

I'm sure I've said this before, but: If you want to know why something works the way it does in the Formula, just ask. Don't accuse, just ask. I'll explain as best as I can.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Thanks for providing some answers for my original question.

I don't agree that the usefullnes of a SA remains the same no matter the unit it is placed on. The game technical benefit is the same, the usefullnes is not and from there I think that it should be factor (multiplier). If one does not want that, make it a function of the pinning class or some other indicator that one finds useful. There are many solutions to implementing this, the core of my argument is just that the usefulness can change with the unit type it is placed on.

Regarding your idea that this logic can be applied anywhere is correct but moving to a factor (multiplier) based system would invalidate much of the work done and (I guess) no one wants that. I consider SA to be outside the normal stat line and therefore it warrants its own logic.

Just one other thing:
Im a no in no way putting words in your mouth. From the "?" it is quite clearly a question to clarify your position on whether or not this part of formula is still open for debate.

Best
Jens

The "usefulness" of any Special Ability is an opinion that varies from person to person, and thus is not something that the Formula can rate or put a value to. Thus I have attempted to ONLY value a thing based on its game mechanics as used during play. Since the game mechanics of Hard To Hit are not changed or affected by any other stat of the model, it has a fixed point cost.

Well, we seem to have a stalemate. You firmly believe that the value of Hard To Hit should vary or be a multiplier of something. I do not. At this point, it might be best to stop arguing the point and let others state their opinions.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Umm sorry can someone point me in the direction of the spreadsheet please? I'd like to have a play around with it!

Thanks

There have been sheets posted here and there, but I don't know exactly where anymore. I also doubt that they are very recent. Sorry, but you will just have to go through the threads and find it.

I seem to recall that there was one posted in a thread in Platinum where costs for various Marine things were being discussed, but that is almost certainly an very old version.

In any event, there is not a fully automated sheet anywhere as yet. Even in the file I personally use, I have to reference the costs formula document and type in a lot by hand. While I might try and create such a thing at some point, I haven't had the time or motivation as yet.


On a different note, I seem to have made a typo in the costs for PD for a number of models. I'll have to poke at those and post the revised costs ASAP.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

There have been many times where various people have expressed dissatisfaction over how Break Point is valued into the formula, especially in regards to variably sized detachments / formations. I have just come up with an idea to simplify the process.

Instead of worrying about which models go into which group, the entire formation receives a discount based on the Break Point of the final formation.

For example, a formation where the BP is half of the total number of models would have its total cost adjusted by 3/4ths. In other words, multiply by 0.75 or divide by 4 then multiply by 3. If the BP is within 5% of half, this should be fine.

For Break Points values other than half, figure out the percentage value, halve it, and add that to 50%.

For example, a formation with 18 models has a BP of 12. This works out to 66%, thus half of that is 33%, and added to 50% makes 83%. Thus the cost of the formation would be multiplied by 0.83 to determine the final cost. [If you want more precision, multiply by 0.8333333, but then round to the nearest whole number as usual.]

Thus formations that have a BP of 100% will always use the full cost with no discount.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Yep that's what I did with the marines and guard spreadsheets I did up a while ago. Seemed to work well for those 50% break point guys.

I probably screwed it up for the single unit formations, like apothecaries, as they should be 100%, not 75%. But it was a rough draft so that's my excuse!

Also for the company point values I just multiplied the pv*0.75 by a further 0.9 to give the company 10% discount value. I figured that was probably pretty close to the full calculation.

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

Er, the discounts for Company and Special formations were removed a long time ago, though I don't recall exactly which revision. You may want to revisit the first two posts and update your spreadsheet with any other changes.

An Apothecary is not actually a BP of 100%, as it is a BP of "model" where the model in question is the stand. Do recall that the formation usually includes a transport vehicle of some kind, and some value must be added for that. What I have been doing in this case is using the full value of the Apothecary (or whatever) stand, then using 1/5th of the cost of the transport, so long as said transport is something minor like a Rhino. If placed in a Thunderhawk, use the full cost of both, as the BP would then be "1+1".

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Ok thanks for that. I didn't realise.There might e some other changes required in the spreadsheets also then. I probably won't get a chance to fix these for a week or two now. But I'll try and get it all updated to the current formula when I can.


So the apothecary stand is 100% of points value, a basic transport is 20% of points value, and a better transport is 100%. Got it. Hopefully the distinction between basic transport and better transport is fairly easy for me to define.The listed options for most of the marine characters are Rhino/Razorback/Drop Pod so I'd assume that they are all "something minor" so costed at 20%. The techmarine can take land raider variants, so I'd assume that they would be costed at full price.

Thanks for the feedback.

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

Rhino, Razorback, and Drop Pod should all be 20%, yes.

The distinction that I am working with is that a Thunderhawk is a significant entity on the battlefield on its own, whereas a Rhino is fairly minor. A Land Raider is a reasonably significant model, but not nearly as much as a Thunderhawk. Looking back at how I valued it when I did those 'alternate formations' for Marines, it appears that I included a Land Raider in the same category as a Rhino.

Thus probably the best way to rule this would be to say that any selected Command Transport that normally comes in a single model formation would be full price, whereas those models that normally come in groups are at 20%.

As examples:
_ An Eldar Warlock Special Formation comes with a Command Falcon, which is valued in at 20%. If this were replaced with a Vampyre, the Vampyre would be at full cost.
_ An Ork Painboy formation comes with a Command Battlewagon, valued at 20%. If that were replaced with a Skullhamma, it would be at full cost.

This way, a person could not make a custom formation of, say, an Imperial Inquisitor that has an Imperator Titan as his transport and take the Titan at 20% of cost.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi

A facebook post got me thinking about this new point system.

The idea one facebook was that it was cheaper (300pts) to buy 3 x battle company for SM than one of Assault, Tactical and Devestator company. Under the current C&C rules for SM these two buys are same on the table and should cost the same.

Having used the points comparison file it is still cheaper to 3 battle companies than one of each type separately, now the difference is 104 pts. I'm thinking that the price should be equal under the points formula?

Best
Jens

That is an interesting question. I looked at those for a while, and finally figured out the difference. The difference is that an Assault Company comes with an Assault HQ stand and not just a Marine HQ stand. The Battle Company comes with a Marine HQ. As should be expected, an Assault HQ stand has Jump Packs, and thus costs a little bit more than a Marine HQ stand.

Do also make sure you were using values as per 0.43, which is the most recent posted Formula version.

If the Assault Company were reconfigured to use a Marine HQ stand instead, the formation would cost 813.591 points, which can be rounded to 814.

Thus to re-compare with actually identical formations:
modified Assault Company: 814
Devastator Company: 885
Tactical Company: 673
Battle Company: 790

814+885+673=2372
vs
790*3=2370

I'd call two points off close enough to identical. The two points is probably due to rounding to whole points rather than using decimals.


On a different issue, what does the game Command & Conquer have to do with Epic at all?

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator

Hi

Thanks for the answer.

The Cost comparisons list updated 4-16-16.pdf says 0.43 in the right most column so I thought that was the newest.

With the modified points value, I agree that 2 pts is close enough. Thanks for the clarification.

C&C more often than not means Command & Control when talking wargames. My point is that the comparison only makes sense because SM has very little C&C outside detachment coherency.

Best
Jens

I have not made any pdf of points costs. That must be something that Primarch put together. It is probably up-to-date, as the most recent listed points for Marines was updated on 13 Feb 2016, but I have not checked to be certain. You may want to poke at the "Points formula values for NE Gold Marines" thread over in the Army Lists sub-forum to be sure.

Sorry, that is not a term used in NetEpic nor in any other wargame with which I am familiar. Thanks for the clarification though.

_________________
Net Epic Coordinator