Re: [Epic] First Epic 40k battle

From: David Lado <lado_at_...>
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 13:43:53 -0400 (EDT)

>>> Devastators have the
>>>same firepower as IG heavies, and although are superior in some other
>>>ways, cost a whole lot more.
>
>Um, no. We've had this argument before. Once you add in the mandatory and
>near useless command units for the IG, the marines only cost slightly more
>for the same fp at 30+cm. They are slightly outnumbered and outgunned at
>under 30cm, but by and large, I think most people agree that their armor and
>"stubborn" ability more than make up the difference.

If you look at the simple point cost to get the extra 1 FP, the marines do
get a much better deal. But they also give up rapid fire, which is a
pretty useful specialty (it is basically a restricted heavy weapons
upgrade).

SM: 5 pts lose rapid fire, 1 AV
CSM: 6 pts lose rapid fire, 1 AV, gain stubborn (so equal to SM cost)
Eldar: 10 pts lose 2 AV (more than anyone else), gain +30 cm range
Orks: 8 pts lose 1 AV
IG: 7 pts lose nothing

All units (except eldar as noted) gain 1 FP and +15 cm range.

So if you look at the IG as the base cost of just getting +1 FP and +15cm
range, then the others are pretty equal. The eldar seem to get the worst
deal, but they are they only ones that can upgrade to assualt as well
(why they would want to is another question).

Frex, if you treat the 1 AV as being worth 1 point, then IG and orks are
equal. The marines subract one point for the lost AV, and 1 point for
the rapid fire (which seems very reasonable). CSM are the same but pay
extra for stubborn (just like their normal marines). The eldar lose
2 AV, but seem to pay a whopping 5 pts for the tripling of their range.
If this is true, it would seem that 15 cm of range is worth 5 pts, while
1 FP is worth 2. I don't think this is right, since beastmen are exactly
identical to orks, but without guns, and cost 4 pts less (the same as
gretchin, which have 15 cm guns, but worse AV and armor).

I occasionally will sit down and try to figure out how GW assigned points
for the various units (i.e. did they do it based on some formula, or just
by a gestalt view of the effectiveness of the unit). Personally, I think
its probobly a combination of the two. One thing I am pretty sure about
is that the costs are not linear. That is, for example, if you have
units with identical stats, it costs alot more to "upgrade" from 5+ armor
to 6+ than it cost to go from 3+ to 4+. I'm not sure about the various
values of different things, but it seems that armor is very expensive
(i.e. things with good armor cost alot more than similar units with bad
armor). Judging from the heavy weapons stats, FP and range are worth
more than AV.

Also, some armies seem to get bonus in some areas and penalties in
others. Presumably, this is to represent the "feel" of the armies.

Example of the above are:

Non-linear costs for improving stats:

all armies pay +1 pt for jet packs to go from a 30 cm max assault move
to a 50 cm max assault move (a bonus of 20 cm). The eldar get a bonus
of 30 cm (45 to 75) but pay 4 pts for it (and given a 75 cm assault
range, it seems very reasonable to me).

different values for the same upgrades in different armies.

IG pay 6pts for hero, which gives them save, +1 AV
Orks pay 5pts for hero, which gives them save, +2 AV

All armies pay +1pt for assault,
Orks pay +2 pts.

Most armies pay +10 for psychers
Orks pay +11
Chaos demons pay ??? but it seems to be cheap. A Fleshhound (daemon,
cavalry) cost more than a daemonetter (daemon, pyscher).

and of course...
Chaos SMs pay +1pt for stubborn comapared to regular SMs.

(I haven't really looked at the tyranid lists closely).

David
Received on Fri May 16 1997 - 17:43:53 UTC