As all Epic players know, the original points values for all the Epic units were evolved within the Epic series of games designed by the Games Workshop. Those were Adeptus Titanicus, Space Marine versions 1 & 2, and Titan Legions. Although GW used a more or less consistent points system in these games, they also had many shortcomings. There were quite a number of exceptions regarding the specific armies. Rounding up to the nearest 50 was too crude especially for low-cost units, and the system was evidently adapted from other similar games with somewhat different rules (like the usage of the markup for multiple AFV weapons systems, see below). Most important of all, the formula was not common knowledge. Therefore the players who design new units for themselves had to evaluate their costs by comparison only, and could not be sure to derive points values consistent with the existing system.
When we of the NetEpic group started out to create a better Epic scale game by fixing some of the existing rules of SM2 and TL, we suffered from this handicap too. In the cases we altered the costs of the old units or created new ones, the only scale we had was the rule of thumb. We had assigned new points values, field tested them, and sometimes re-evaluated them if the results seemed unfitting.
Within last summer, inspired by a chain of messages in the group, I started to examine the points costs of the original SM and TL units. I could not use the NetEpic units directly; a lot of them were either later developments or altered Epic units that may not agree with the original formula GW used. After starting with the simplest units that have very little difference between them, I generated a number of tentative formulas and tested them against the known values. As I got better results, I then included more sophisticated units and new parameters to describe their specifications. Later I presented the resulting formula to the group, received their help in testing it, and valuable feedback to refine it further. The final result is the formula that you will find below.
As mentioned above, the formula is derived from the original unit cost values used in GWs Space Marine version 2 and Titan Legions. For this reason, all the examples in this text are from those sets of rules (the modified NetEpic stats are not used). However, as NetEpic units were derived from the units in those games, it would be appropriate to apply the formula to the NetEpic units as well. As will be elaborated later, the formula still carries the bias of the GW designers, and may reflect the usefulness of the units better if used with somewhat modified parameters. On the other hand, this would imply to go back and re-evaluate all the NetEpic units, which, for the time being, has not been agreed upon by the group. So, to retain compatibility with the existing system, the formula should be used as it is, even if known to be imperfect. Moreover, as NetEpic rounds to the nearest 25 points where GW games round to 50, and only the latest units were costed by the formula, there may be some NetEpic point cost values that do not comply with the formula. If you agree within your gaming group however, you may go on and use formula-derived costs instead of the listed Army Card values (that is, when these are different).
The system employs a Weapon Cost Formula to calculate the cost of weapons. These costs then are added into the Model Cost Formula that reflects the basic characteristics of the model. The main model formula also contains add-on terms under the heading "other", some of which may modify the weapon costs. The result is then rounded into the nearest integer, and multiplied by the number of models in the unit to calculate the total unit cost. For the heterogeneous units like mechanized infantry, this should be done for each of the model types included and then summed to obtain the total unit cost. Finally, the result is rounded into the nearest 50 points. Note that this is to maintain compatibility with the original SM & TL costs in the design stage; if the formula is used to create new NetEpic units, or to modify the existing points costs wholesale, the rounding should be to the nearest 25 points.
The points cost for a typical Epic weapon is given by the formula:
Weapon Cost = Attack_Dice x INT[ 3 + (Range / 5) x ( (7 - Roll_to_Hit) / 6 ) x (1 - TSM) ]
Use the maximum capability of the weapons when calculating these values. That is, apply the highest possible values as opposed to the optional low values - like throwing 5 dice in a Pulsa Rokkit shot instead of 20, or reduced capacity due to losses like shooting with a single Vibro Cannon because it is the only remaining one in the battery. Assume an average length of 3 turns for a typical game. Note that the value 3 is the minimum fixed cost of any weapon.
The average number of shots per turn. For the barrage weapons, this is interpreted as the average number of barrage templates fired by the battery per turn.
Examples:
1. Land Raider Lascannon: 2.
2. Kustom Kannon Speedsta: These use the artillery die to determine the number of shots. The average number of the shots is (0+2+4+6+8+10)/6 = 30/6 = 5.
3. Basilisk: The battery shoots 2 barrages per turn, thus the Attack Dice is 2.
4. Manticore: The battery may fire open-sheaf barrages, so it may shoot 3 templates per turn. On the other hand, it shoots in every other turn, so the number is halved. Therefore the value is 3/2 = 1.5.
5. Deathstrike Missile: The number of templates generated by each is 1+D6, so the average is 1 + (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 1+21/6 = 4.5. Although all 3 missiles may be fired in the same turn, this is ignored since it is the average for the 3-turn battle that matters.
Average shooting range in centimeters, taking into account the maximum capability of the weapon. Enters into the formula as 5-cm increments of the actual range (Range/5).
Examples:
1. Volcano Cannon: As the data states, 100.
2. Deathstrike Missile: The missile goes 1D6 x 10 cm per turn ("6"s dont count), and we again assume a 3-turn game, so the average range is 3 x ((1+2+3+4+5+0)/6) x 10 = 3 x 15/6 x 10 = 30 x 2.5 = 75.
3. Pulsa Rokkit: The rocket travels 50 + 20D6 (when used to maximum capacity), so the average will be 50 + 20 x (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 50 + 20 x 3.5 = 50 + 70 = 120.
Average value of the minimum die value needed to destroy a single target. Used in the formula to calculate the probability to hit ( (7 - Roll_to_Hit) / 6 ). For the barrage weapons, take the to-hit value of a single template fired by a single gun. Note that, for some barrage weapons (like the Warp Hunter and the Pulsa Rokkit), those values are given directly in the weapon descriptions rather than expressed in barrage points.
Examples:
1. Infantry Bolter: 5, as the stat line gives.
2. Vibro Cannon: This is a bit deceiving. The definition gives the basic to-hit value of a single gun as 5+. However, these weapons have the ability of combining their shots. As we are always taking into account the maximum capabilities of the weapons, this should be incorporated into the formula since an unbroken Vibro Cannon battery has always more than 1 weapon and thus hits automatically. Therefore the to-hit value should be taken as 1. Of course, this logic is rather simplistic, and does not give the exact average hitting probability of the battery per cannon. Still, this seems to be the method used by GW to evaluate this weapon.
3. Basilisk: The gun has 2 barrage points. Using the corresponding to-hit value, we get 6 (note, not 4; that is the value for the whole battery).
4. Manticore: The gun has 6 barrage points. As above, we take the value for the single gun and get 4.
5. Goliath: Now, this one is a little tricky. The piece has 3+D6 barrage points, so the average barrage points come to 3+3.5 = 7.5 BP. The corresponding to hit value is then 3.
This is the average modifier value for the single weapon. Used in the formula as a negative term to negate its minus sign. The term is added to 1 to avoid multiplying with 0.
Examples:
1. Devastator Heavy Weapon: -1, as listed.
2. Vibro Cannon: 0 to 2, depending on the number of the guns used. Thus, taking the average, the value 1 is used
The cost of the single model is given by:
Model Cost = 2 x [ (Move / 5) + (7 - Save) + CAF + (4 - Morale) + Other ] + Total Cost of Weapons
As above, use the average values for the model, taking into account the maximum capabilities, when calculating these values.
Normal movement rate of the model in centimeters, averaged for models with random moves.
Examples:
1. Rhino: 25.
2. Tarantula: 10. Although this is the value for the Charge move of the stand and it may not move in Advance.
3. Kustom Kannon Speedsta: The stat line gives 30+2D6cm. Calculating the average, we get 30 + 2 x 3.5 = 37.
The minimum unmodified roll needed to save the model on a D6; averaged for the models with random save values. Use the value 7 for models with no saves.
Examples:
1. Tactical Space Marine: The model has no save, thus 7.
2. Terminator: Use 6, the "fixed" attribute does not alter the value.
3. Mekboy Speedstas: The vehicles have a randomized saving throw between +1 and +3, which is determined by a D3 roll. Taking the average, the formula save value is (1+2+3)/3= 2.
The value listed in the stat line of the model. As always, use the average if multiple values are possible.
For normal models and stands, use the Morale value of the whole unit. For command units and other units that do not check morale use 1.
Examples:
1. Imperial Guard Tactical Stand: 4, the standard morale of IG troops.
2. Goff Nobz: These being command units, use 1, not 4 of the Goff Clan.
These are the add-on values reflecting extraordinary abilities of the model or its weapons. Use the following table (may be incomplete, ideas welcome):
Ability | Points |
General | |
Non-Ork Infantry, and other models that have unrestricted move and 360-degree firing arc | 5 |
Non-Ork Infantry Command Units | 5 |
Ork Boyz | 3 |
Ork Nobz (including the command ability) | 6 |
Jump Packs | None! |
Organic Healing ability (Medic, etc) | 10 |
Mechanic Healing ability (Tech-marine, etc) | 15 |
Other non-Psychic Special ability (Chaplain, etc) | 15 |
Psychic Ability (Librarian, Grey Knights) could be elaborated on | 25 |
Vehicles | |
Transport Capability for each 3 stands | 1 |
Extra non-Bolter Independent Weapon System (extra weapon stat line) | 5 |
Being Super-Heavy | 5 |
All-around Save | 5 |
Side Armor as Front | 2 |
Dozer Blade, Deathroller | 5 |
Being a Skimmer | 2 |
Weapons (per weapon, not per attack dice) | |
No Modifier for Cover | 2 |
Plus 3 damage against Titans/Praetorians | 2 |
AA Gun | 10 |
Using the normal barrage template | 10 |
Using the large barrage template | 20 |
Unit costs are calculated by adding up the components and then rounding off the number. The steps involved are as follows:
Army Card Points Cost = 50 x INT[ 0.5 + (Total Unit Cost) / 50 ]
Note that the Company costs should be calculated separately instead of adding up the Army Card Points Costs of their component Detachments. Also note that, since NetEpic uses increments of 25 points instead of 50 points of GW, the results may differ when used for NetEpic.
Note that when calculating the Company costs, GW disregards the cost of the HQ unit. Had these been included, the costs would be considerably higher. I have included some of the HQ costs for reference. The comparison below aims not to generate fair costs but to test the formula against the GW values. The differences may reflect biased costing by GW as well as incorrect assumptions or parameters in the formula.
Unit | Calculated |
Rounded |
Original |
Notes |
SM HQ Unit | 71 |
100 |
100 |
OK. Note the 0 cost for jump-packs |
SM Assault Det. | 255 |
250 |
250 |
OK |
SM Assault Coy. | 765 |
750 |
750 |
OK |
SM Tactical Det. | 243 |
250 |
250 |
OK |
SM Tactical Coy. | 729 |
750 |
750 |
OK |
SM Devastator Det. | 363 |
350 |
350 |
OK |
SM Devastator Coy. | 1089 |
1100 |
1000 |
Perhaps biased costing by GW; play with the morale value a little bit, and you get their result. |
SM Battle Company | 861 |
850 |
850 |
OK |
SM Veteran Det. | 279 |
300 |
300 |
OK |
SM Veteran Coy. | 837 |
850 |
850 |
OK |
SM Terminator HQ | 131 |
150 |
- |
|
SM Terminator Det. | 338 |
350 |
300 |
GW might have favored SMs here too |
SM Terminator Coy. | 1014 |
1000 |
900 |
Same as above |
SM Bike Detachment | 125 |
150 |
150 |
OK, although definetely calls for a NetEpic adjustment |
SM Land Speeder D. | 180 |
200 |
200 |
OK, and same as above |
SM Rhinos (3) | 75 |
100 |
50 |
Maybe theyve rounded up the model cost to 24 instead of 25 |
SM Land Raider Det. | 207 |
200 |
200 |
OK. However, any small change in the weapon cost formula to reflect the differences in weapon effectiveness better makes this cost 225 or more |
SM Vindicator Det. | 159 |
150 |
150 |
OK. |
SM Predator Det. | 213 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
IG Tactical Platoon | 200 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
IG Assault Platoon | 120 |
100 |
100 |
OK, but should cost 125 in NetEpic. |
IG Heavy Platoon | 200 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
Beastmen Platoon | 200 |
200 |
200 |
OK.Note the accuracy of IG costs so far. |
Ogryn Platoon | 140 |
150 |
100 |
GW may have given the IG an "edge" here. Shows how appropriate our adjustment of the price to 125 is. |
IG Company HQ unit | 84+25 |
100 |
- |
See how much they cost. |
Commissar | 46+25 |
100 |
0 |
Again, note that they give 1VP in NetEpic with our alteration. |
Grey Knight Det. | 400 |
400 |
400 |
OK. |
Rough Rider Platoon | 210 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
Sentinel Detachment | 120 |
100 |
100 |
OK, but should cost 125 in NetEpic. |
Tarantula Battery | 100 |
100 |
100 |
Seems OK. Guess what; take into account that they fire both in FF & A, and adjust the attack dice to 2 and they cost 190 points! |
IG Bike Squadron | 105 |
100 |
100 |
OK. Note the difference form SM; comes from 4+ morale instead of 2+. |
Leman Russ Sq. | 192 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
Stormhammer | 164 |
150 |
200 |
See below. |
Stormhammer Coy. | 492 |
500 |
500 |
OK. It is obvious that they set the single tank cost high to prevent players taking 3 tanks instead of 1 company. |
Shadowsword | 165 |
150 |
200 |
Same as above. |
Shadowsword Coy. | 495 |
500 |
500 |
Ditto. |
Basilisk Battery | 198 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
Bombard Battery | 225 |
200/250 |
200 |
OK, but marginally. Calls for a NetEpic adjustment. |
Artillery Company | 621 |
600 |
600 |
Ditto. Note that the cost is for 2 Basilisks and 1 Bombard. Taking 2 Bombards would definitely tilt the cost. |
Manticore | 195 |
200 |
200 |
OK. |
Whirlwind | 138 |
150 |
150 |
OK. |
Rocket Company | 533 |
550 |
550 |
OK. The cost is for 2 Manticores and 1 Whirlwind. Taking 1 M & 2 Ws would make the cost 471, which strongly justifies Peters fixing of the specific artillery pieces in the companies. |
Unit | Calculated Cost |
Rounded Cost |
Original GW Cost |
Notes |
SM Mole Mortar (3) | 84 |
100 |
100 |
OK |
IG Mole Mortar (3) | 72 |
50 |
100 |
It seems like they (GW) havent done the adjustment that they have made for the bikes. Maybe justifiably - morale is not very important for the artillery. |
Squat Mole Mortar (5) | 140 |
150 |
150 |
OK. |
SM Thudd Gun (3) | 75 |
100 |
100 |
OK. |
IG Thudd Gun (3) | 63 |
50 |
100 |
Same argument as Mole Mortar. |
Squat Thudd Gun (5) | 125 |
150 |
150 |
OK, but just barely. Calls for an adjustment. |
Squat Goliath | 168 |
150 |
150 |
OK. But should round to 175 in NetEpic. |
Squat Goliath Battery | 504 |
500 |
450 |
Possibly GW just added up single gun costs for not being able to use increments less than 50 |
Eldar Guardian Det. | 132 |
150 |
150 |
OK. |
Falcon | 153 |
150 |
150 |
OK. |
Eldar Defender Host | 396 |
400 |
450 |
It seems GW just added up detachments. |
Eldar War Host | 855 |
850 |
850 |
See how well this fits; especially as opposed to the Defender Host. |
Dark Reapers | 224 |
200 |
250 |
The formula cost contains no special abilities. Add as much as +2 for them, and you get 250. |
Dire Avengers | 104 |
100 |
100 |
OK. |
Exarch | 392 |
400 |
400 |
OK. |
Swooping Hawks | 120 |
100 |
100 |
OK. |
Lascannon | 75 |
100 |
100 |
OK. |
Vibro-cannon | 99 |
100 |
100 |
OK. Check logic in the examples above. |
D.stalker Prism C. | 55 |
50 |
50 |
OK. |
Warp Hunter | 180 |
200 |
200 |
OK. We should have classified this as artillery, it certainly is. Now, the formula gets 10 for template, 2 for extra damage, and 2 for being a skimmer. However, it does not take into account that each vehicle shoots a template, unlike normal artillery. If we put it in the formula as an extra template (attack die+1), the price comes up to 260! |
Jetbike | 155 |
150 |
200 |
See below. |
Vyper | 190 |
200 |
250 |
See below. |
Wind Rider Host | 835 |
850 |
650 |
! It definitely seems that they wanted the Eldar players to use the bikes in hordes and not in detachments supporting other units. Still, the difference in the costs is ridiculous. I say this calls for an adjustment. |
Tempest Squadr. (3) | 459 |
450 |
500 |
Close enough. The "use the host, not the support detachment" logic works here too. |
Tempest Host (6) | 918 |
900 |
900 |
OK. |
As mentioned above, the above analysis attempts to capture the original logic of the GW in calculating the card costs. It seems to be working more or less okay, and even emphasizes some biased costing by them. I n my opinion, the parameters used by the GW were not very representative of the true strengths of the models. Weapons costs should have taken a larger portion of the formula. For instance, as players we know that Devastators have usually more overall effectiveness than Terminators because of their long-range weapons with negative save modifiers. I also think that some abilities, like being a skimmer, have been also underpriced. We should also note the instances of obvious miscalculation by the GW.
As you see from the above examples, all the units tested here are the original GW units. None of our new NetEpic units or old ones with changed stats have been tested, although they should not be too far of, as they were fitted within the existing brackets.
Some obvious additions and modifications to the formula can be summarized as follows:
As I have mentioned before, some of the above modifications (or any others that may be proposed in the future) can not be implemented without first deciding to re-evaluate the points costs of all the NetEpic units. So it may be more appropriate to use it as it is for the time being. However, those suggestions may be useful if you use the formula in designing a NetEpic-based stand-alone game system (I for one, am working on a NetEpic-based system for WWII units, and planning to use a modified version of the formula), to which you are welcome.
If you have any ideas, suggestions or corrections concerning the contents of this article, feel free to contact me or the NetEpic Discussion Group.
You may use the attached Excel spreadsheets UnitCos4.xls and UnitCex4.xls to aid your calculations.