The points value test

[LukeG]

Just a quick outline of what I'm applying to models to try and work out if they're broken or not.

A unit should be able to equal it's points, nullifying an equal amount of points in a completely neutral environment (completely unlikely as someone will get to fire first, the only time this would happen is in a double write off ram, e.g. Rhino vs Rhino both destroyed)

So basic performance is points for points.

A bad performance is obviously earning less then their points and being completely destroyed.

A good perfermance (a good general or lucky run) is acheivable under two conditions.
* gaining the units points worth while not giving away any points
* doubling the units points worth but being destroyed in the process

An optimum performance, everything falling into place, should be assumed at doubling the points the unit is worth while remaining unharmed.

Anything consistantly underperforming regardless of circumstances shows there is something wrong (tactically or rules wise).

Anything capable of seriously outperforming on a consistant basis (clearly more then double without loss, or quadrouple+ with loss) is overpowered.


This seems random but any discussion would be useful. This little system is my weapon for balancing the reworked combat system. It came about because one of the two Tyranid players is complaining that a Lictor can't mow down 500 points of enemies anymore, thus voiding our attempts to balance the combat system.

[James 40K Champ ***]

true to some extent.. but you cant judge the value of everything by points.

Transports earn thier value as one of the best units i the game (imo) without killing much.

Terminators are unlikely to earn more than their points worth, but the ground they can hold is invaluable...

a distraction unit, such as scouts.. can be really usefull without doing much actual damage.

Or an big armoured target may simply justify itself by the amount of fire it draws away from your lesser armoured vehicles..

the list goes on

[Yarlen Fireblade]

Inevitably you will find out that most of the points values in 40k2 are nonsensical, there are a number of obvious example i can think of off the top of my head.

Space Marine attack bikes.
Rhinos.
Eldar Jetbikes
Generally speaking the cheaper the infantry the better, 300 points worth of Orks, Imperial Guardsmen or Eldar Guardians (especially Eldar guardians) will beat 300 points worth of Space Marines every time.

[tturen]

Given that the lictor is a highly specialized unit that in general should not be engaged in h2h in the first place it should be able to earn loads of points in h2h.

A smart player will simply shoot it and screen their own forces with cheap infantry. That way the lictor will never even earn back its points cost.

Its tough to judge value but in the tyranid army under the standard rules the Lictor is reasonably balanced.

I second all of Yarlens examples! The points cost for some units is indeed a bit broken.

[El Capitan]

I generally sympathise with some of these, particularly the Eldar Jetbike, the Rhino on the other hand is more mobile cover and isnt as effective if you cover your table in scenery. As a Chaos player I hate attack bikes, and its still a viable option with +50% points cost.

The tactical squad of marines example I have to disagree with, if you are ever beaten by 300 points of guardians, orks or guardsmen then you need to get back to the tactical drawing board. In fact when training new people I often pitch 10 marines against 30 guardsmen, even a novice usually slaughters all the guardsmen.

[Yarlen Fireblade]

The tactical squad of marines example I have to disagree with, if you are ever beaten by 300 points of guardians, orks or guardsmen then you need to get back to the tactical drawing board. In fact when training new people I often pitch 10 marines against 30 guardsmen, even a novice usually slaughters all the guardsmen.

Then i would put it to you that your ability to use Imperial Guardsmen effectively is questionable.

[El Capitan]

Same question back for marines

Seriously though, it usually goes the way that one of the guard squads will retreat, and the marines can lay down enough fire power to kill almost a full squad of guardsmen a turn in heavy cover. Adding extra stuff to the mix changes everything of course but in the straight fight I find this usually turns people on to 40k. It demonstrates the points worth of different troops clearly, its generally quite fun little scenario with some cover laying around and its very simple. Plus everyone like slaughtering guardsmen wholesale, unless your one of the saps who paid £15 for a box of 20 men....*ahem*

[Charly]

id go with the marines personally! in almost any situation, remember my chaplain not dying even when surrounded by about 30 guardsmen at close range? but continue your point yarlen, what do you think is wrong with the points for rhinos, attack bikes and marines, and what points would you suggest?

[Charly]

using the guardsmen vs marines example... at 24" range with no cover, a guardsman has an 8.33% chance to kill a marine. a marine has a 74.07% chance of killing a guardsman using his rapid fire. using those percentages u can work out that it takes on average 3 guardsmen to kill one marine over a four turn game, and that it takes 0.34 space marines to change a light bulb, i mean kill a guardsman. some more maths leads u to it needing 30 guardsmen to kill 10 marines in 4 turns, and it takes 10 marines to kill 30 guardsmen in the same time. therefore the space marine and imperial guardsmen points ratio is absolutely bloody perfect!

[James 40K Champ ***]

nice little calculation. Id also heavily agree that points for points, marines cream guard.

If its the case that in your games guards men cream marines id be seriously interested in seeing how that happens.


Anyway, this entire topic is a very grey area.. you cant entirely judge a units cost effectiveness on how many points it scores, theres just too many things to take into accout.

An army is an army for a reason, and things work together in different combinations.

Perhaps some armys do have some really nice bits of kit, like eldar jet bikes.. but you cant forget armys often have huge disadvantages too.. like eldar being girls.

[tturen]

I can't say I've ever seen marines use rapid fire for more than two turns in a row in any game. A comparison that rquires that it be used for four consecutive turns just for them to be as lethal as IG just proves that they are the less effective unit. This is particularly true given how each army tends to be played with the marines being a mobile army and the IG in static defense. Without rapid fire its 25% of the marine force dead each turn and 15% of the IG down. Add in Eldar gaurdians with s cats instead of the IG and the marines get creamed easily with or without rapid fire.

Go beyond the static comparison in terms of unit weapon options and tactical utility and the marines come out on the short side against the IG forces given the weapon options for the IG and their own special rules such as detachable heavy weapons and vet skills. Two fully equiped IG squads for less than 300 points will smash the marines and are capable of defending a greater area of the table top all while protecting high value units behind them. In fact for 300 points an IG commander could take two IG squads, a command squad, two heavy bolters and a dead eye skill (or 3 plasma guns!). That would ice a marine sqaud pretty fast.

Marines are just overpriced. Any IG player that can't beat marine infantry with IG infantry should retire.

All of this is even worse for the marines when you look at them as just units on their army list. It becomes hard to justify even taking them at 300 points each while the IG are always useful even at their worst as meat shields.

[Charly]

i realise that it was a static comparison, with numbers of troops staying constant, my point was to show y the points are as they are. the original comment was regarding basic troops (without extra equipment) im sure if u made the marines veterans and gave them a couple of plasma guns and even just a missile launcher they would kill lots of guard, its pretty irrelavent tho. so what points do you use marines at?

[tturen]

I understand why the comparison was static. Its just that in actual game play point for point the marines will get pasted by IG.

Beef up the Marines and that simply gives the IG commander an even more lethal mix of weapons and or even greater numbers. Either way they win in a point for point fight. The marines only stand a chance when the IG can't or don't get any options from their list.

Lets also consider that an IG squad and a Russ together are only 305 points and thats how the IG tend to be played as each squad choice can be backed by a support unit on the cheap.

We play 2000 point games. For me thats about one of each type of Wolves unit. So 1 grey hunters, 1 long fang, 1 blood claw, 1 wolf guard, 1 scouts, and some support choices (two predators) as well as some minor champions in the squads. The hunters are by far the least effective unit in the list.

I enjoy the IG squads I take but the hunters are little more than points sinks in our games. The IG units are far more effective in actual game play. Their ability to screen in numbers and take cheap heavy weapons gives them sizeable edge.

The codex cost for marines is simply to high and it does impact their game play. This may have a smaller impact in OGC with some of the teeth pulled in terms of support and characters as well as beard trimming (Most other codex armies have a longer beard than the Marines.).

[Charly]

yeah im not sure what has effected it, but i can honestly say ive never felt my marines outmatched by any number of guardsmen, like you say its mainly about the tanks!

grey hunters are the tactical marines in space wolves i believe.. tactical marines are by far my favourite unit in the whole game, they can literally do anything, they have the option to take a heavy weapon to match even the best armoured tank, even missile launchers have massive potential, setting up blind/plasma missile screens etc. they can take a special weapon, my favourite being the flamer, allowing them to safely clear out bunkers etc, and the lasting effects can be amusing, meltaguns can be excellent character killers and in our rules are just about capable of taking out vehicles, plasma guns really help bolster the fire of the squad at range. the whole squad can be given krak grenades allowing every one of them to be capable of taking out heavy infantry or even light vehicles with relative ease. finally the sergeant has access to assault weapons, if the squad is charged etc that can really make a difference, or as a last ditch effect a power fist can easily take out a heavy tank.

id really enjoy playing in a game where marines are cheaper but i dont think it would be fair!

[tturen]

Point for point as soon as you let Marines and Imperial Guard squads take special and heavy weapons the comparison in capabilities is over. The IG simply smash the marines. At that point an IG player can load up and out shoot with twice as many or more heavy and special weapons.

This is a real world not a static scenerio:

It's game over even in a typical IG list without tanks. A codex IG force at 300 points tends to played like this: Two squads basic infantry= 200 points (stripped to max support options in larger games), 1 command squad (required)= 60 points, +40 points of special/ heavy weapons. Say 2 heavy bolters in the command squad for overwatch duty for 20 points. Total cost: 280 Spend the rest if its infantry only on two more heavy bolters that will be detached from the IG squads= 300 points for a total of 4 heavy bolters in a 300 point list. Yep, 25 IG and 4HB, on a list ready for two support slots. Ugh.

Keep in mind when my IG play they tend to be a static force. Its the marines who will have to advance into gun range. Charge of the lite brigade anyone?

Give the Marines special and heavy weapons? This forces at least 5 marines to hunker down around one weapon. That leaves 5 that can be 'tactical'. It also hands the IG troops even more heavy weapons and or heavy weapon squads that can be taken as a regular troop choice. In fact in my own IG army I use an army of 'threes'. One infantry, one heavy weapons and one support so a 300+ point force in an infantry battle would be one infantry, one HW squad, one command, and 1 Rattlings squad.

Even if the Marines take only a HB they will face three in return and the rattlings as well all with 10 points left for the IG to play with. Total IG 26 models, 3 HB, 5 needle sniper rifles with BS4. Give the marines the missile luancher and the IG can simply replace two HB with luanchers of their own or better two laz cannons with gun shields for an ideal mix of weapons against any force.

In any case once the gloves are off the marines cost to many points to compete on the table top.

[James 40K Champ ***]

Marines are still more tactical in our opinion.

For one, we play with very little scenery in deployment zones to discourage shooty armys to just sit and blast (a rather boring tactic), of course they still can, but they wont have much cover to benefit from. The marines however, helped by the fact they have low numbers, should be able to achive light, if not heavy cover for the entire army, while returning fire at unprotected gaurdsmen.

Aside from that, a decent marine player is going to take advantage of being likely to deploy 2nd and set up his army to strike the weakest part of the IG, probably a flank, and attempt to cut off the rest of the army.

The result, the bulk of the marines should be firing at one small part of the IG with no cover, when return fire comes from surviving guardsmen, its at troops in light or heavy cover and if vehicles are involved they will be going combat speed, so -1 to hit. Provided the marines win this combat which is weighted heavily in their favour, in both numbers and terrain, they are then already in positions to spin round and take on the rest of the guard in later turns, with no threat of being flanked.

[James 40K Champ ***]

Im willing to accept your points, but just remember its not always so black and white, its a complicated game.

Most people who have played with guard in our group, including myself have received batterings.. thou im not denying they are prob verry effective once you know exactly how to use them.

Marines aint just more expensive guard with increased stats, better armour and guns.. but they are more tactical too.

[tturen]

Lack of DZ terrain certainly will impact the battle and hurt a larger force more than a smaller one. However as described its the Marines who will be move first in order to get into gun range (tactical squads) otherwise they forfiet the initiative. Thus they will not fire twice in the first round. As long as the IG player can bring the heavy guns the bear in the second turn they should win the engagement even with the superior initiative of the marines.

I played IG for years often against marines. They died in droves and never came close to beating the Guard. When we opted to switch forces and I played the Marines against my own IG the battles were hard fought but then I know every IG wrinkle and I could see the misstakes they made and use the marines to exploit them. I agree they are a much more tactical force and the IG are a hammer. If the IG don't make misstakes though they will beat any army in 40k even if its run to perfection as well (Exceptionaly cheesed armies excepted). The reserve rules are fully capable of offsetting and overcoming the short term marine tactical advantage.

Even with Wolves I've found it much harder to win than when I played IG. In fact its a lot harder. Certainly though a lack of DZ cover would have cost me some games with the IG but on the whole they remain a superior force. It was routine to route other armies by the end of the second turn.

Our newer IG player truly struggles to win but its strictly based on tactical errors and over agressive use of the armoured forces. That and he doesn't use the reserve forces to counter attack in concentrated formations against key objectives.

[James 40K Champ ***]

Well, if one army is proving too powerful in your group, gw in the old days always did encourage you to play with the rules, they were never a complete set, just a very good skelleton to add to.

As countless of these threads have indicated, here in OGC we are virtually playing a different game now in a lot of ways, but I guess whats key is to work out whatevers best for your group and keep things fair

[tturen]

I agree. Fair needs to be determined by each group of players. In our case it means I don't use the IG. It wasn't fair and in the end it just wasn't fun either. I've enjoyed the Wolves the most I think just because the games are always close.

We also have players that could win more as well but they instead opt to play with the spirit of their army firmly in mind. Our Ork player truly represents the green skins and doing so has cvost him on a number of occasions. Fun doesn't always mean victory!