Creating a Unit Calculator

Support TOC on Patreon: / theoutercircle
Our bling shop - shop.spreadshi...
TOC Instagram - / theoutercircle
TOC Facebook page - / theoutercircle

[@solairelordran3032]

I believe you're really on to something. Visually demonstrating it like this really underscores your point.

[@fraserm7682]

The Rogue Trader rule book has a similar set of rules for custom points values, made me start thinking about a homebrew project where one rulebook contains everything to make an army, no codex required as USR’s are included too somehow.

[@KirksDouble]

GW had this for older editions of 40k, allowing you to role play a lot more, creating characters as a GM (rogue trader and 2nd Ed from memory); they had one for Blood Bowl during the LRB period too; no idea why they moved away from it as it’s not exactly rocket science; but I do appreciate there is a lot of compounding factors that make things harder to be precise on but as a basic sense check of value this makes so much sense. Nice work on this though.

[@Blackhound61]

No idea why? To shift product I suspect! Whatever has piled up/is new and needs selling

[@loltwest9423]

You know, I actually created a minigame system of my own for some minis I had. I calculated the points cost of the individual model based on its probably of survival against a basic attack, and calculated the points cost of the weapon based on its ability to kill the toughest statline. I think it came out as fairly balanced, all things considered.

[@theylivewesleep.5139]

As in a theoretical toughest statline (all values maxed) or the actual statline of a miniature?

[@jusztinnemeti6380]

The fact that GW doesn't have something like this just shows how incredibly incompetent they are as game designers. You whipped this thing up in an afternoon, probably. And, well... The Horus Heresy train wreck keeps on chuggin' along.

[@Mancboy2000]

I would love to play around with this for homebrew projects

[@volcano3493]

You found the holy grail of unit creation. Well done! Besides that this task wasn´t so trivial. No GW suit could ever figure out how to do it and the few designers in the past who had the chance to reach the same conclusion had been chased away from the company decades ago. Remember GW is not a games company. It´s a mini company. As such they have zero interest into getting hold of your formula.

[@dragooncerberus33]

Interesting take on the subject. Look forward to see what you come up with.

[@LeopoldZ]

I really like the idea! But i think the points are way off for both a marine (they're fine at 10pts, so over 150% overcosted) and a contemptor (my guesstimation is they should cost about 225 base, so you only got about ~70% of that depending on weapon costs). Some sort of correlation between wounds and toughness is probably needed too, since the difference between 1 T5 wound and 2 T5 wounds is enormous. Also, not sure if a model should ever be under 4 points in an objective based game, that can be fixed with special rules and equipment, but it's definitely something to keep in mind!

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

thanks for making this video. I had an idea like this when I was more actively playing GW games and was told it was too complicated or stupid and yet I always failed to see why that was the case

[@jakubgodlewski9104]

That's pretty amazing and I can't wait to see what you do with it! I also had the thought, that with their level of budget, GW could realistically have a program/algorithm where they keep all their unit stat blocks and points costs, which would in turn dynamically shift the value of different stats (i.e. armor save 4+ sucks, because 90% of weapons have ap 4). Stellar work mate!

[@jakubgodlewski9104]

Also a bit of a tangent, but as much as I try my best to think of GWs many failures as incompetence, seeing how simple an algorithm like this is makes it pretty difficult not to think they know this and purposefully make certain units extremely overpowered. We've kinda seen evidence of that in 8th ed 40k and Repulsor Executioners with them nerfing the unit once it got sold out. Anyways, I know you're not really doing those types of videos anymore, but I would love to know your thoughts on the "incompetence vs malice" quandary.

[@olsonusmaximus]

This is amazing! I was just talking to my game group about trying something exactly like this to help balance 3-5 edition armies. Your methodology is much, much more advanced than mine, but I had the same idea, just not nearly as fleshed out and workable. Thank you!

[@noquarrel2758]

I like this a lot. I think a different sheet needs to simulate comparisons between units fighting each other as well to provide some basic validation as to points costs. Obviously its a rock paper scissors game but we should be able to compare performance and points costs per category. Love it!

[@SqwantSquint]

This is similar to how the points values are done in warcry. Someone used regression analysis to create a calculator similar to this. Warcry still has balancing issues with some stats being over emphasised compared to others so GIGO I guess. In my opinion creating more concrete reasoning for the influence on points for each stat is important to making sure a system like this is successful. For heresy this kind of thing will be even more challenging because of the amount of USR's and granularity within them eg. rending/breaching, inexorable/stubborn.

[@johndoe-ld9sm]

You forgot movement. What I've done in the past is to apply multipliers for special abilities and stats. I did something similar to this for a fantasy game a bit over 14 years ago. Personally, I thing the base points for a marines is too low to properly point out. Things like grots and conscripts loose all value.

[@vojtaxxxxxxx]

Very nice

[@Raygun9000]

I'm not sure I'd take a ws7 grot over 2 space marines. 😉 I play tested and wrote rules for gw 20years ago. The style of the time was army balanced against other army, then internal balance. I went a different route: the damage a unit can cause(including speed), multiplied by survivability as a start(not a direct multiplication). Then tweak after play testing.

[@svengro5019]

Considering GWs size I would expect them to have a system to evaluating point cost and then simulating battles to see how well a unit does and if it's stat lines make sense. But having worked in medium sized companies before my expierience tells me that this sort of effort often hinges on a few individuals at key point´s whilst the lower ranks just do their work and the higher up´s are just pleased as long as the profit is good.

[@seekwhen1848]

Now this is some quality content you are demonstrating, showcasing an approach that is both useful for the game, and also useful for common issues we face in our lives everyday. Numbers approach is really good at visualizing patterns in large dataset, and often provides great insight on how a system can be controlled!

[@mark4cele7]

man i love your videos! keep up the great content!!!

[@toombs24]

He's doing it, he's doing it!!! Basically rewriting the rules so they are more balanced. I'm excited for this!

[@fredmcfred6629]

Good job

[@andreastauber5739]

You did precisely what I was afraid you'd do - assign values and sum them up. I think multiplying small values makes more sense here. So, for example have Weapon skill be 1,2. For each point in WS you multiply the number by 1,2, that means with 2 extra points in WS you multiply the number by 1,44 (1,2x1,2). That way making one stat higher increases points more if another stat is higher. Also, IMO it makes sense that tactical support squads are as expensive as heavy weapon squads, even if they are worse and here is why: you need to take availability into account: if I can only take 3 and have to forego pretty nifty stuff to get it (heavy weapon squads), it can be cheaper than something I can take 4+ of that replaces just my basic troops.

[@CloningIsTooGoodForSheep]

This is similar to the approach taken back in 2nd edition. One thing to note the cost of close combat attacks should double when the attacks double e.g 2 attacks is twice as expensive as 1 attack and the cost should impact the cost of the weapon e.g if a weapon cost 5 points with 1 attack it would be 10 with 2. Also the Horus Heresy should be one of the easiest games to balance as the majority of units share the same stat line.

[@thexydis]

Macca this is an awesome project! Reckon you can look at expanding the range of wargear to include xenos stuff? I've been looking at doing some army lists for xenos forces to make 40k fun again. This calculator would be a massive help

[@SCV2400]

I am working on something like this for each edition of 40k, but determining the point values is a bit different than what Mac is doing.

[@scepteredisle]

GW 100% did have a calculator for WFB and 40K pre-8th. They even printed their original formula in Rogue Trader. Do they still use the same formula they used for 3rd-7th ed 40K for HH? Doubtful... but the issue with points is synergy with other units, that's what throws them off and probably why they appear to not use an formular for the newer editions of 40K; and AoS.

[@kharnthebetrayer.2632]

hey macca hope you are well. : )

[@moleculeman27]

Could be the Mandela efect, but didn't the original Rogue Trader have something along these lines in the book?

[@jameslane9085]

Yes. It gave a base stat and math formula for changing stats and points

[@neilmerrifield2281]

And if I remember correctly, a marine sans wargear was 15pts? 17 with bolter and combat accessory

[@John-bb4zm]

I think you're undervaluing the single wound model. At 2 ppm even if it will never get a kill i can have 22 models contesting an objective for the price of one recalculated termie. If i were to do this for aos id start with an average unit (10ppm, 2 attacks at ws4+ S4+, 5+ save, 1 wound, 6"move) then see how much the stats changing effects things. Ghouls are 80ppm but have more wounds per points and hit just as hard, making them quite fairly balanced. If you put the wounds up, keep em around the same ppw. If you put the damage up, keep em around the same dpp.

[@andreastauber5739]

Btw - you could THEN go ahead and compare survivability and kill potential of the models vs points to value vehicles correctly too!

[@itsallpointless6501]

Cool :) Are you still writing your game Macca? I'm looking forward to it!

[@walt_man]

I disagree with your 'number of attacks' integer. You should double it, attacks are really powerful with good dice rolls.

[@robertbodov912]

Battletech actually has a full rulebook that contains just the rules for creating and customising units and calculating their points values. I would be infinitely happy if GW did something similar for Horus Heresy

[@kristianjensen5877]

Beautiful thing is that you don't need GW to do anything. Just get the people in your gaming group onboard playing with the system and you're good to go and can enjoy your own balanced game. :)

[@Krullio]

Any long time player has something like this in their mind to say in the general framework whether something is good or not - depends on the edition you play of course. It is why you, me and many others can see pretty quickly how an army will(should) be formed, if something is a must have, etc. And by no account is this unique to warhammer. Play Magic and you can find/see the combo’s that just rock. What am I heading to? It is good you work it out and frankly it is retarded GW doesn’t have it or openly share it. You see, they don’t need to do the work. They can just say “hey guys here is our game metric generator for the game. Please come with feedback.” In fact, all they need to do is post an article with the algorithm, even put a pdf with some armies and their new point values and say “please play, give us you opinion. Film your gameplay and say what, when how and show us what happens and what you mean.” They can then filter adn update the algorithm. Maybe even say that some combo’s are oké and intended to be at the power level displayed. Heck going through feedback would truly be a heavy burden in staff for a company to bear. So maybe that is to much to ask, but the point is they don’t need to do the work to refine any of this. So it ain’t like it is an million dollar investment.

[@Weapon01]

If your taking a suggestion, I'd like to suggest, for Infinitary, points should be rounded down per model. For example if a model costs 16 to 19 points it'd get rounded down to 15 points. Or a model that's be 21 to 24 also rounded down to 20 points. etc For the purpose of a infinitary orientated game, rounding down additional models would /should encourage more infinitary Additionally Character (sgts) or Ind Character (praetors / Primarchs) the points would be rounded up. 11 - 14 rounded up to 15 etc.. (a mirrored version of above)

[@batman9592]

Where iz da BOYZ!?!??1

[@Erikjust]

I am reminded of an old made up song i read on a forum once. "99 bugs in the code 99 bugs, you take one out patch it up, 199 bugs in the code." These sheets might start off as a good way of balancing the game. But what´s to prevent it from overtime becoming so complicated and contradictory that you will end up with a system that might before have the a fore mentioned 99 bugs in the code, only to end up having 199 bugs instead?

[@TheOuterCircle]

Well it's only statlines that and wargear that it gives the model, and that's the baseline points cost. The human designer has to come in and tweak it from there in order to give it the final result it needs. I want to keep it simple, and I'm thinking of a few changes already at the base level.

[@captainferrite]

One Page Rules has this

[@colinmack8655]

Has circle listened to Calvatore and Priestly on games design.

[@tomseppanen2316]

This reminds me, have you seen that new campaign books character rules? Where Meduson is the most expensive (175p) and has ws5 and worse gear compared to others like Aximan cost 170p and have ws6 and better weapons. Its so badly written.

[@ero9841]

Looks like bv from battletech

[@Balevolt]

Ah good base is a human civilian

[@lunatheleopardgecko8097]

do you think you'll release this publically when things are ironed out? I'd gladly pay for something like this to present to my local play group and have us play around his more balanced point values Edit: Just finished the video...

[@spu00trb]

The reason this doesn't work is that WS7 is immensely more valuable if it is partnered with 3 attacks at strength 5 than 1 attack at strength 3. So, for even the basic calculator like this to work it needs to somehow be based on kill potential between all the stats. If my WS 2 S 2 A 1 L 4 model has a 2+ save and a 3+ invulnerable then sure, thats kinda silly, but, it's still not worth much as a model. It's nothing but a bullet sponge that I need to chase off with psycology rather than guns. The save isn't worth a tonne of points per model, but, if I bolt that same save to something with WS 7 S 6 A 4 L 10 then suddenly that extra save is super valuable. But, then the value is also affected by wounds. If I have lots of combat value, but only 1 wound, then the save is critical, but what if I have 15 wounds? Is a 2+ save/ 4+ invuln really much better than a 3+ save/5+ invuln? How much better? To make it work you'd need to build a simulator which sorta autofights statlines against each other.

[@bear4278]

Looks good mate 😊 However, isn’t using Initiative 3 as a base line a tad too high? Don’t some militia have I2? Not being a dick! I love the idea and just trying to help incase that was overlooked 🤗 Edit: just checked and think it is only Orgrns for Militia 😊 There are quite a few with I2 for Mechanicum though 🤗

[@jakubgodlewski9104]

I think if 99% of units have Initiative 3 or more, it is better to start with a baseline of 3 and if an I2 unit does occur, just adjust their cost as you go.

[@bear4278]

@@jakubgodlewski9104 Indeed 😊 However, from my understanding of what Macca was saying at the start, that baseline would be the lowest possible and there would be no point taking points away for them being lower so just wanted to point out that edge cases out. For instance, that means even basic guardsmen would be fighting first against you and while basic guardsmen’s melee attacks aren’t scary, taking ~40 hits on the charge against a 3+ save could cost you a model or two before you get to fight which could be a fairly significant weekness (especially if hypothetically the rest of your stats were identical everywhere else). Maybe I am misunderstanding what he meant or he has already taken that into consideration and plans on making all I2 things I3 but figured it was worth mentioning just in case 😊

[@jakubgodlewski9104]

@@bear4278 he mentioned at one point that he technically should lower some things even further, but at that point the baseline is such a pathetic unit that it shouldn't cost any points and as such wouldn't make sense as a baseline. But yeah, I definitely get what you mean and if we were being strictly pedantic, that's probably what should be done. Neither of us (nor Macca apparently) sees much of a functional implication for doing that though, so I reckon we can cut him some slack.

[@bear4278]

@@jakubgodlewski9104Oh definitely! I really don’t think it will matter at all so not saying he is “wrong” or anything (I really hope it didn’t seem that way!)! Just pointing it out as constructive criticism for him to take or leave / some food for thought 🤗 I figure it is better to point anything out now rather than saying nothing only for him to realise he needs to make big changes way down the road 🤗 Also, I just know I only play with Space Marines in 30K so often forget to take into consideration the other factions so am just double checking he hasn’t done the same thing 😝

[@thecraftmasque]

It's insane that these sorts of tools dropped out of GW's toolbox but here we are. on a side note: hard disagree on slower terminators - the game suffers from a soul-crushing lack of fluffy rules as-is. house-sized chonky boys sprinting across the field? no thanks