Loophole Master said:

So you are saying that play testing constitutes some sort of formula? This alone seems a little random to me.
A true formula would be to assign values to all these attributes. Then you play test your formula.
Now this takes time, but in the end you don't have to muse about anything the answer is their for you.

Many on this site complain about how the Hotdog is not worth fielding anymore because its points do not reflect it's abilities.
This would not have accrued with a formula, and is an exultant example of how perceptions can change.
Play testing should be used as a tweak not as a method.  

One of the things I like about Dust the most is the ability to field the game pieces I want. Lets take this to the next level and assign values to weapons and abilities. You could kit out your own vehicles, and design your own unit combinations. You could even make your own heroes.

This is what hoped to see in warfare, which was supposed to be revolutionary. It just strikes me as a lesser 40K.

 I'm saying that a forumula would have to be darned complex to really work. You'd have to take into consideration the interplay of weaponry, skills and stats. You can't just give a hard value to something like "Fast". Giving it to the Hot Dog would be a VERY valuable addition, while giving it to the Grim Reapers would be an almost negligible improvement.

Loophole Master said:

That's where the playtesting comes in, it's ok to have a fixed point value for items but 99% of the time these will need to be adjusted in someway.  Even the same weapon on a medium mech is worth more than if its on a light mech as in theory it should last longer and get more shots off.  So, basically it's nigh impossible just to have a hard set of points values for items without adjustments.

No formula can account for everything in a dynamic game, especially with new units being added relatively often(which can drastically affect the formula). For example, if the formala says that assault is worth X, then wouldn't it be actually more useful on certain units that have abilities/weapons like fast, charge, CC weapons, or flamethrowers? And wouldn't the cost of Assault be in flux if FFG were to release more units with abilities like Advanced Reactive fire, or more Range U weapons (or whatever)? IMO, the route of eyeballing the points costs and adjusting as needed (the route FFG has taken) is the better route because it is more adaptable to changes in the game/meta balance.

I have no problem with FFG just updating the tournament cost PDF on a roughly quarterly/biannual basis. This in my mind is similar to what CCGs do when they update their restricted/banned list and more easily allows the game to evolve over time.

Yes, and all in all most costs seem very appropriate. There are only really a few units that I feel have the wrong value, and I wish they would update some of the costs.

I agree that most of the costs seem appropriate. I can really only name a handful of units that are overpriced and even they aren't exactly completely worthless, simply not great values.

And I think Lara is underpriced at a meager 21. Recon Boys are a tad overpriced. And the heavy walkers could be cheaper in general.

I concede that completely pointing out everything in dust would be difficult. However even a basic formula that attaches values to stats ranges and damage, can get you close to rite.
As I said then the play test is then only a tweak of plus or minus five points. As for the skills play testing is the only way I can think of to point these out. Skills do give the game flavor, but some times I think their a bit over the top.
Anyway I love to customize my models some sort of points system would allow the model to fight cool not just look cool. You can't tell me you guys haven't wanted customize your own walkers?

Back on topic… yes, whoever has Koska wins, especially if they get to place the cover, just put the tank traps in the entrance - game over.