PDA

View Full Version : Does Warhammer need to bring back 1/2pts?



Shimmergloom
10-06-2008, 16:00
The points values are getting more and more ridiculous lately with dark elves only costing 2 pts more than a goblin with a spear and 1 more point than an empire spearmen and units of all sorts paying through the nose for equipment that usually is not worth it at all.

So if GW went back to having half point values like in the past could this alleviate or solve alot of our problems?

If a goblin was 2 1/2pts instead of 3 or a clanrat was 4 1/2 pts instead of 5, would this be much preferrable?

If units paid 1/2pt each for a spear or shield instead of 1pt each, would this make things like spears, regular bows and other less desired equipment more worth it?

I believe it would.

Wolfmother
10-06-2008, 16:29
no the half point were got rid of for a reason its silly and unnecessary

Bloodknight
10-06-2008, 16:33
I say no because at some point you'd find that half a point would not represent something correctly and introduce a quarter point.

I think the main problem with the system is that they went too far into the low spectrum (ie most units cost too few points), and under a certain level, let's say 10 points, models which are supposed to be weaker do not scale well anymore. If for example a knight costs 50, and a DE spearman 15, then the goblin could cost 9, and a Skaven slave 6 or whatever. But once you reach the point where all crappy troops and their upgrades cost the same, you cannot scale them.

Andrew Luke
10-06-2008, 16:35
I say, bring 'em back! Math is FUN!

Aurellis
10-06-2008, 16:36
I believe the use of half points is unecessary as improved points costs could equally represent this change, also 1/2 points could get confusing for the adding up of victory points.

Magos Explorator
10-06-2008, 16:46
Half points didn't cause many problems back in 4th edition. :)

Condottiere
10-06-2008, 17:12
I think the main problem with the system is that they went too far into the low spectrum (ie most units cost too few points), and under a certain level, let's say 10 points, models which are supposed to be weaker do not scale well anymore. If for example a knight costs 50, and a DE spearman 15, then the goblin could cost 9, and a Skaven slave 6 or whatever. But once you reach the point where all crappy troops and their upgrades cost the same, you cannot scale them.

I agree, but the reason for the point drop is so that you are given the opportunity to buy more models to fill up your army list.

However that screws up a more precise cost system.

Not surprisingly, I voted for the half-point.:evilgrin:

W0lf
10-06-2008, 17:35
Im impartial it dont bother me ether way.

Bloodknight
10-06-2008, 17:43
@Condottieri: well, they should have upped the standard game size to 3K (ie first lord on 3K, etc.)

Condottiere
10-06-2008, 17:46
@Condottieri: well, they should have upped the standard game size to 3K (ie first lord on 3K, etc.)

Ever study Sales & Marketing? You convince the consumer he's getting more for less. 3000 points might have scared them off.;)

Cherrystone
10-06-2008, 17:47
I vote yes but only because GW have gone too far in lowering the point values so there isnt enough to differentiate between the troops (at the way things are going all basic troop types be under 5 points by 9th edition).

So a better solution would be to rebalance the points (impossible unless they start the armybooks afresh) to have a greater scale, and increase the average size game if you/they want more models on the table. 3rd to 5th edition had unequipped goblins at 2 1/2pts, humans at 5 pts, orcs at 5 1/2 pts and elf and dwarfs at 8pts (from memory- might be wrong) which seemed to work fine.

As for the maths i have no problem but occassionly my opponent has discovered hes miscalculated (quite often in his favour :) )

Bloodknight
10-06-2008, 17:53
Ever study Sales & Marketing?

Nah, I am a linguist, I care about how communication works, not how to dupe people into buying something ;)

Feefait
10-06-2008, 18:21
Apparently I can't read either. I voted "no" since i hate the math of half points. Dang 2.5 point skaven slaves... I curse you!

wizuriel
10-06-2008, 18:55
I don't think the half cost is needed but agreed that stuff is getting far too cheap.

pretty much any book after (and including) high elves is uber compared to anything previous.

snyggejygge
10-06-2008, 20:32
Iīm w. wizuriel, too many things cost less than 5 pts so you donīt really see a difference, if the entire pointssystem were reworked & a human was once again basis, 5 pts w. no upgrade like in 4:th & 5:th edition it would probably work better & many more things would cost more proper points.

Dominatrix
10-06-2008, 20:41
I voted no. There is such a thing as taking it too far and this idea is just it. What's next upgrades or models that cost x.05? :rolleyes: The problem is that too many units with very different stats and abilities are receiving the same point cost and this doesn't represent these differences accurately. Then again comparing point costs across armies can lead to wrong conclusions sometimes so my opinion is to leave everything as is.

Dwarf Runelord 45
11-06-2008, 04:27
I voted no because 1/2 is rediculious 2.5 for things i mean sure point values would be more exact but it would be hard to compile victory points among other things.

Weldo Rubin
11-06-2008, 13:06
What about going back to the Values of 4th/5th AND rounding 1/2 Points down?

Human: 5
Orc: 5
Goblin: 2
Dwarf: 8
Elf: 8
Skaven: 4
Saurus: 14
Skink: 4

Would that work?

Condottiere
11-06-2008, 13:35
A realistic cost structure for default and upgrades would be welcome, but that would require a complete overhaul of all the army books.

^_^
11-06-2008, 13:39
My Warboss gets a shield for 2.48932 pts :D

I like the idea of half points, but to me, they do not solve the problem. A Goblin for 3 points is too expensive, no matter whether he can get a spear for 0.5 or 1 point.

superknijn
11-06-2008, 13:45
No, It's much to complicated.

DeathlessDraich
11-06-2008, 14:13
If all the points are doubled, then half points become whole points.

Gobbo Lord
11-06-2008, 14:53
It either a case of bring back half points or redo the entire points system to scale properly. Goblins with spears are 4 points each (most goblin models come with spears and as such, this is how most people arm them), an orc is 5 points. The orc has 1 point of extra toughness, weaponskill, and leadership. Has 1 point of extra strength in the first round. And has a whole load of extra advantages in the army.They get full rank bonus for the Waaagh, Generate extra power dice for the shamans. All for 1 point more.

Clearly this is wrong. And either, spears should be a half a point for goblins, goblins should be 2 and a half points or orcs should be more expensive. This would have to then be applied across the board.
Although all armies have points problems (the difference on points between a black knight and a Boar Boy compared to their abilities makes me cry) half points alone wont solve it. 6th edition rectified this, bringing all basic troops to the same statline and working from there. 7th is messing it up again. With big deviations between each army release and seemingly uncrossreferenced points values.

mattieice
11-06-2008, 15:07
no, no, a thousand times no! I'd actually prefer if they made everything in multiples of 5 like in the dark angels codex. it makes army building much less tedious.

ZeroTwentythree
11-06-2008, 15:37
Um... you realize that 1/2 is the same as .5?

I think the complaints that 1/2 points are too complicated are a bit sad, really.

It's worked fine before, and would help fine tune some of the low end troops (goblins, skavenslaves, gnoblars, etc.)

Shimmergloom
11-06-2008, 16:46
The complaints that .5 or 1/2 points are too complicated are a cross between hilarious and stubborness.

If you can figure out whether your M4 unit of spearmen can make the charge at a unit of dryads which are 4 1/2 inches from a wood and 1 1/2 inches inside the wood, then you can add a bunch of 1/2 points into your army calculations. Good grief people. Kids learn fractions in the 1st and 2nd grades.

If 30 goblins are 3pts each, that = 90pts. If 30 goblins are 2.5 pts each that equals 75pts. If you don't have the common math skills to add up points totals for your army lists and then for VP's, then you have no business playing warhammer at all. Especially since you will already need 1/2pts for totaling unit VPs as it is, it's just that the actual rules say to round up when 1/2 points come into play.

Such as a giant who is 205pts and 102.5 VPs or 103 rounded up.

A orc big boss, as bsb, on a boar, with lt armor = 113pts. You give him one wound and at the end of the game he is worth 56.5 VPs or 57vps rounded up.

So all they would need is to say that if it's over .5 pts round up, under .5pts round down.

a unit of 21 night gobbos at 2.5pts each would be 52.5pts. 1/2 strength would be 26.25 rounded down to 26.

It's silly to behave like learning all the special rules for warhammer and your army books and all the math involved is fine, but putting 2nd grade math into the equation and it's too much for you to handle!

Count William Grey
11-06-2008, 16:49
I understand people's sentiments to attempt to mathematically solve Warhammer, but consider the following. GW is in the business to sell models, and they have said they are not in the business to make a perfect game system (as shown in multiple statements and obvious rules contradictions). Therefore, a game system based on anything resembling a mathematical model would be the equivalent of GW writing a codex without typos.

Gobbo Lord
11-06-2008, 17:10
That statement of selling models not a game is one of the main reasons for people seeing a gradual decline on the hobby (not me im fine as i enjoy playing and only play fun people). BUt look at it from the outside. PEople want to play the game, without the game the models wouldnt sell. If people walked into the shop and were told they were just models with no game to play, they would not buy an army.
The game sells the models. People buy the army books to construct an army and play the game. Without this fundamental fact the game would not sell as much.
I do think that this attitude of "we are a model company and the game comes second" contradicts how the company started out, a games designer who used other companys miniatures to play their games.

And i agree people complaining about half points being too complicated to work out is plain scary.

Wickerman71
11-06-2008, 17:30
Something has to be the minimum base value & a whole number serves that job better than a fraction. Points cost manipulation is not the only means to establish balance at lower costs Ie Rule & Stats. Instead of patting yourself on the back for your superior math skills of adding & rounding fractions think through what it would add to the game which is absolutly nothing.

Makaber
11-06-2008, 17:42
I don't neccesarily think things are becoming too cheap. If you compare say, a goblin to a swordsman, the point difference might be appaling, as the swordsman is vastly superior.

However, once you buy a unit of 25, with full command, the difference isn't that huge. They have the same toughness and armour save, same move. Their difference, the weapon skill, only comes into play when attacking or attacked. Sure it's pretty significant if it decides if the unit is hit on 3's or 4's, but then again, other times they'll get hit on the same number anyway. On the offense, the WS is even less important as neither regiment is prone to wound a great many troops with the hits from their (very humble number of) attacks.

So, the only thing you're really paying for, is how easy the regiment is to hit under certain circumstances, and how easily they administer their rather low damage potential. Compare it to the cost and effect of say, a war banner, and the prices aren't that off, really.

Shimmergloom
11-06-2008, 18:22
They don't have the same move. The goblins have a 17% chance of not moving, and a 17% shot at moving whether you want them to or not, while the swordsmen will always move when you want them to.

The goblins have less Ld which increases their chances of failing leadership tests. The swordsmen can force elves and many other ws4 or less troops to hit them on 4's which descreases the number of wounds they will take.

The swordsmen have higher I, which means against many troops they will strike first in later rounds of combat, vs the goblins I2 which means unless they are fighting saurus, zombies or other goblins, they will be striking last.

The goblins also fear elves. Which is 3 out of 15 armies. Or 20% of the current army books. Which the swordsmen do not.

The points values do not reflect in the slightest the differences between a goblin and a swordmen, or a goblin and a elf or a goblin and just about anything.

And these vast point discreprencies appear all across several army books. And the more these new books come out and continue to muck around with points values, vastly undercosting some units and overcosting others on a seemingly random basis in order to sell new minis or sell off old mini stock, then the game will suffer more and more until all the books will have to be thrown out and restarted again from scratch.

Just like the transition from 5th to 6th.

theunwantedbeing
11-06-2008, 18:31
Too complicated.
I mean....it's fractions and fractions are virtually impossible and nobody ever uses fractions ever in everyday life so nobody will ever understand them.

Except for a tiny few who are uber brainy and have no life.

On a more serious note...half point's values could be introduced but that would generally require yet more playtesting that GW simply is not able to do to get something resembling game balance to the lists.

In 8th edition we could see the return of half point's easily enough.
Although half point's would mostly be for unit upgrades rather than point's for actual models, so whether it's really worth introducing something like that I don't know.

Potentially it's a very good way of getting your miniatures sold.
As you just make the most costly way of equiping your troops be whole number's of points...with as many others as possible being half point values meaning people will generally stick to the easiest to work out way.

Fraction's arent at all tricky....we use fractions in movement anyway.
Elves often have to at any rat...as do barded mounts and anything mv9 and so forth.

I still voted no. I just dont see it as worth it.
Too little bonus for too much effort really.

The Anarchist
11-06-2008, 18:32
to be honest it isa good idea, but its a very small drop in the ocean, i mean it could work but it wouldn't as GW no matter how hard they try would still power creep. so half points would work brillaintly for the first 2, maybe even three books of the edition. after that would just be getting to the stage where half points don't cut it either.

ZeroTwentythree
11-06-2008, 18:48
A few things...


1.) As I said before, 1/2 or .5 points were previously in the game, and I don't recall anyone else having problems with it back then.

1.5) I don't think Shimmergloom was bragging about his math skills. He was pointing out that returning 1/2 points to the game would not involve math any more complex than is already used in the game.

2.) If you can't handle adding and multiplying 1/2 or .5 you've got bigger problems than worrying about playing warhammer.

2.5) Discarding all the discussion about the fine points of goblins, what about the fact that they were apparently considered too cheap at their old point value, but are now considered too expensive at one whole point higher. (Previously they were one of the troops using the 1/2 point values, IIRC.)

3.) I don't buy into the "they're a miniatures company not a game company" reasoning because that creates a situation in which you can rationalize anything in the game because they simply wouldn't be required to try or to bother at all.

Shimmergloom
11-06-2008, 18:59
yeah, I don't see how it's bragging to say I know how to do fractions. Most 8 year olds can do fractions.

And since as I was pointing out, you are already doing fractions in every game of warhammer. If you are not, then you are not playing the game right.

Thommy H
11-06-2008, 19:00
It either a case of bring back half points or redo the entire points system to scale properly. Goblins with spears are 4 points each (most goblin models come with spears and as such, this is how most people arm them), an orc is 5 points. The orc has 1 point of extra toughness, weaponskill, and leadership. Has 1 point of extra strength in the first round. And has a whole load of extra advantages in the army.They get full rank bonus for the Waaagh, Generate extra power dice for the shamans. All for 1 point more.


Except it's not for "1 point more" - it's for at least 10 points more, because you have to buy those Orcs in units. Most of the granularity in points cost at low levels actually ends up a lot more sensible when you buy models at that cost en masse (which you do, because they're basic troops). When these values were arrived at, they didn't match up an Orc against a Goblin in play testing and go "hmm...the gobbo seems about 4/5ths as powerful to me...", they got units of 20 or something.

Half points added nothing to the system, except created a false idea of balance. Given that GW have been pushing towards everything in multiples of 5 points over the last few years (at least that was how it was in the last 40K Codex I bought - they may have changed their minds since) I wouldn't cross my fingers for half points getting back in.

CommissarKlink
11-06-2008, 19:01
A few things...


Ditto, basically

I don't post here much, but I had to say something in support of 1/2 pts. I sort of understand the marketing idea behind avoiding them (oh no! decimals will scare the kids!) but anyone who actually wants GW to provide an intelligently balanced game should support either bringing 1/2pts back or redoing the whole point system at a higher "resolution."

Lordsaradain
11-06-2008, 19:10
Yes, bringing back 0.5 pts would mae a lot of sense.

Shimmergloom
11-06-2008, 19:13
Except it's not for "1 point more" - it's for at least 10 points more, because you have to buy those Orcs in units. Most of the granularity in points cost at low levels actually ends up a lot more sensible when you buy models at that cost en masse (which you do, because they're basic troops). When these values were arrived at, they didn't match up an Orc against a Goblin in play testing and go "hmm...the gobbo seems about 4/5ths as powerful to me...", they got units of 20 or something.

Half points added nothing to the system, except created a false idea of balance. Given that GW have been pushing towards everything in multiples of 5 points over the last few years (at least that was how it was in the last 40K Codex I bought - they may have changed their minds since) I wouldn't cross my fingers for half points getting back in.

It's not 10pts more. It's 10 pts less.

A minimum sized unit of orcs is 50pts. A minimum sized unit of goblins is 60pts.

There's something wrong when orcs make better cannon fodder than goblins do.

N810
11-06-2008, 19:17
OR instead of unsing 1/2 you could double all point values and use whole numbers :D

ZeroTwentythree
11-06-2008, 19:32
Half points added nothing to the system, except created a false idea of balance.


What about the issue with the goblin?

I think skavenslaves are in a similar position. (I know the skaven army better than O&G.) Some people complain they are too cheap at 2 points, but at 3 points I'd probably skip over them in favor of a clanrat, who gets LA, shield and better stats for 5 points.

Even at the current 2 point value, their equipment is strangely priced at 1 point each. Add the shield and spear to bring them to 4 points and you may as well spring the extra point for clanrats and skip the slaves altogether. (And this is why it's rare to see anything other than naked slaves.)

It's not at all false, it's a matter of how finely tuned the balance is. The game, the point values and stats were developed over several editions using 1/2 points. Then they just dropped them and still haven't balanced it out, IMHO.




Given that GW have been pushing towards everything in multiples of 5 points over the last few years (at least that was how it was in the last 40K Codex I bought - they may have changed their minds since) I wouldn't cross my fingers for half points getting back in.

I'd prefer to voice my opinion that they don't cater to the lowest common denominator. Besides, I don't see them rounding everything off to multiples of 5 in WFB either.

Makaber
11-06-2008, 19:32
They don't have the same move. The goblins have a 17% chance of not moving, and a 17% shot at moving whether you want them to or not, while the swordsmen will always move when you want them to.

Well sure. If you want to take it in an army-wide context, goblins also has the possibility of a Waaagh! move, greatly increasing their chances of getting a charge. They also have fanatics. And they get to operate alongside the terrific Orcs with their very nice choppas. My point? We're comparing units, not armies.


The goblins have less Ld which increases their chances of failing leadership tests.

It is a valid point but usually you will place the goblins somewhere near the general for just this reason.


The swordsmen can force elves and many other ws4 or less troops to hit them on 4's which descreases the number of wounds they will take.

... Which is a point I adressed. This is what you're paying a point a model for. In many cases, it's not a factor, because you'd hit/get hit on the same number anyway.


The swordsmen have higher I, which means against many troops they will strike first in later rounds of combat, vs the goblins I2 which means unless they are fighting saurus, zombies or other goblins, they will be striking last.

This is an interesting point, because it was the main grief people had with Elves in the first place, back in early 5th edition. They felt they were paying a lot of points for a stat that were rarely used. Now, seemingly, spearelves are too cheap. I doubt you'd be satisfied with a point more of initiative as a way to make goblins "good" again.

Also, they won't strike last against Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings, Dwarves, Chaos Dwarves or other Goblins, and against High Elves it doesn't matter anyway. So, by your own twisted logic, they'll only strike last in about 60% of the time.

Finally, shush. Who the hell uses goblins anyway? Night goblins have I3, surely? And fanatics!


The goblins also fear elves. Which is 3 out of 15 armies. Or 20% of the current army books. Which the swordsmen do not.

... And the logic is twisted because 3 of a possible 15 types of army doens't mean elves actually get played that much. First of all, there's the possibility that not 20% of all players actually like elves in the first place, so they won't play them. By your account, 6% of all armies are Dogs of War, which means I've been missing out on a lot of pikeman action in my career.

Besides, if you're playing a game on a sunday night against a mate, and you know he just painted up his last spear elves, you're not going to load up on gobbos.

Finally, their low leadership besides, Fear againt elves isn't that huge a deal for goblins in the first place. Fear will either make them hit on a 6 if charged, or prevent them from charging, right? Against wood elves, they will get charged by elves very, very rarely, and as the elves will probably be faster skirmishers with an invested interest not to get stuck in, they won't get the possibility to charge that often either. And besides, they don't fear them if they outnumber the elves by less than 2:1.

Against high elves, they won't have any real incentive to charge most of the time. If they get charged, they get to hit on 6's instead of 4's of 5's, after most of the models able to strike gets mercilessly slaughtered, of course. And, again, unless they outnumber the enemy by 2:1, which they'll frequently do against expensive high elf elites.

Which leaves us with dark elves, and we all know how spectacular they are these days.

Not saying it's not a disadvantage. Just saying it's a very minute disadvantage, only coming into play in very rare situations in a fraction of the games you'll play, against a very limited segment of the player base.

And they get fanatics!


The points values do not reflect in the slightest the differences between a goblin and a swordmen, or a goblin and a elf or a goblin and just about anything.

I agree, but that was hardly the point of my post, now was it? What I was trying to get across was that while the point cost of an elf and a goblin might not be and accurate representation of the power difference between the two models, the cost difference between two units of elves and goblins is about right. If we deal with units of 25, and the point difference between the two models is two points, that's a 50 point difference. Then there's the command, which I'm sure is priced differently as well, adding up to (wild guess here) about 60 points.

60 points gets you a goblin wolf chariot to back up your regiment with.

TheDarkDaff
11-06-2008, 20:11
The problem i have is how they condensed everything in the change from 5th to 6th Ed. It isn't just that point costs got lowered but that the stats got squashed up at the same time. Currently a 1 point difference in a stat cannot be accurately costed.

They are basically trying to do more delicate work with a much heavier implement (like painting fine detail with a roller). If GW want to be able to get a finer balance they either need to spread the Stats or the points costs more (or even both) but have to be careful not to go too far the other way (to continue with the painting analogue like painting your house with your fine detail brush).

T10
11-06-2008, 20:14
There was a time when goblins cost 2.5 points, skaven cost 4.5 and orcs cost 5.5. I miss those days, but I don't want them back.

This is an issue that has been partially addressed with regards to unit size and command groups: The individual effectiveness of a unit cannot truly be represented with a points-per-model system.

All units have a threshold in terms of number of models where they essentially peak. For most ogre-sized infantry this is around 3-5 models - 3 model units are resonably cheap and maneuverable, 5-model units are expensive but resilient. Units smaller that this are simply speedbumps and units larger than this usually end up with having models that contribute nothing.

The same holds true for cavalry and infantry, though the latter operate with bigger numbers.

I guess one alternative would be to work out a minimum playable unit size (20 works for Goblins) and say something like:

One unit of Goblins is 20 models including a champion, a standard bearer and a musician. The unit is armed with hand weapons and wear light armour. Cost: 75 points. Options: The unit may armed with short bows (+15 points), or shields (+15 points), or spears (+15 points), or spears and shields (+25 points). Add any number of goblin rank-and-file models (+3 points per model added).

-T10

Urgat
11-06-2008, 20:24
voted yes, my gobs were probably too cheap at 2 points, but they're way too expensive at 3 >>
I didn't read all the blabla before, you're asking for my opinion, I give it.

Gazak Blacktoof
11-06-2008, 20:37
One unit of Goblins is 20 models including a champion, a standard bearer and a musician. The unit is armed with hand weapons and wear light armour. Cost: 75 points. Options: The unit may armed with short bows (+15 points), or shields (+15 points), or spears (+15 points), or spears and shields (+25 points). Add any number of goblin rank-and-file models (+3 points per model added).

-T10


This is something our group has talked about in the past. It works well for elite units as well, where you avoid paying huge numbers of points for models that will never get a swing in.

GW seem to have chosen a different route for elites and they'll probably try something different for swarm troops as well.

If nothing else, I think some weapon options should probably be costed on a per unit rather than per model basis.

I'll be voting yes. The game would probabaly benefit from half points or a different "resolution" as somebody else put it earlier in the thread.

ZeroTwentythree
11-06-2008, 20:52
One unit of Goblins is 20 models including a champion, a standard bearer and a musician. The unit is armed with hand weapons and wear light armour. Cost: 75 points. Options: The unit may armed with short bows (+15 points), or shields (+15 points), or spears (+15 points), or spears and shields (+25 points). Add any number of goblin rank-and-file models (+3 points per model added).



I like that idea, as it addresses the problem I mentioned above, where the cost of equipping low-points hordes just doesn't make sense.

Thommy H
11-06-2008, 21:12
It's not 10pts more. It's 10 pts less.

A minimum sized unit of orcs is 50pts. A minimum sized unit of goblins is 60pts.

There's something wrong when orcs make better cannon fodder than goblins do.

Uh...but aren't Goblin units 20+, not 10+? You're creating a false comparison here - 10 Orcs being cheaper than 20 Goblins is not controversial or strange.

My point was (and is) that you can't take an individual rank and file trooper, looks at its stats and special rules, compare it to another individual rank and file trooper and judge whether it's too cheap or too expensive. They come in units. You need to look at the cumulative cost of those stats and abilities and decide if, when you multiply the cost by 10 or 20, it's worth it or not.

To keep with the Orc vs. Goblin analogy: a single wound model having +1WS, +1S in the first round of combat, +1T, +1Ld and some special rules is worth more than +1 point. But for a ten wound model (which is all a unit is, really) with that much difference between another ten wound model , +10 points doesn't seem so strange.

Remember also that the system is designed so that differences between basic troops become less important as the unit gets larger because big units get rank bonuses and outnumbering and stuff which make differences between WS, etc. less of a big deal.

You can't just look at individual models and decide they're costed wrongly is my point.

EDIT: Further to this, and having read some of the other replies, I agree with the suggestion of "20 models with command costs X pts, add more models for +y pts each". That's how it's always been phrased with Dogs of War (and it is just a terminology change really), but I like how it gets across the idea that these guys are a unit, not just a bunch of models that are sometimes fielded in a block (which is the way the rules make it look). The system is about units fighting, not about individual models, and they're costed with that in mind.

scarletsquig
11-06-2008, 22:46
I think the return of half points would really help balance certain units, but I can't see GW ever wanting to bring it back.

Reducing Empire halberdiers by one point would make them too good, reducing them by half a point would be perfect.

tom1354788
11-06-2008, 22:47
i think a point that people are making in thier arguments is that certain troops are under or over priced compared to other troops. A few issues on this point.

1. This will always be the case, the game designers are only human, and i fully expect the cost of units to yo-yo around, especuially as armies gain new units abilities or options, which leads me onto point 2.

2. it is very difficult to compare the value of one unit in a army designed to do one thing against another unit designed to do another thing, e.g. heavy cavalry does very diffrent from very cheap infantry for example and neither could perform the others role, yet people are not assessing the value of the two units combined.

There is a argument that heavy cavalry is most usefully when breaking a enemy unit that also has to face the large static combat resolution from a block of cheap infantry, but in this example which of the two units is actually the most important, the small hard cavalry or the cheap numerous infantry in providing the victory?

This is but one example of the interaction of units with a army and only deals with two types of units, in nearly all army list there will be 4 or 5 diffrent types of unit/ characters that abilities will be interdependant.

3. As in point 2 but to a either greater extent you cant compare the points values of a unit in one army to the points value of a similar unit in another army. The best example i can think of this is zombies - goblins. zombies are the worst troops in the game in my opinion, worse weapon skill, strength tougness, armour than a goblin yet 1 point more expensive. yet a special rule in the VC army book, allowing you to raise more of them means they have a provide a very potent tactical option, namly a excellent tar pit to allow the more expensive vc units to get side charges etc. there value is in being able to do this is far more valuable than there stats would suggest they cost, hecnce being more expensive than goblins.

This is probably best explained in the back of the old VC book where the designer actually explains all this.

4. The half point. There is no need for it, a simpler method would as has been pointed out be to double the cost of all units, but this would mean all books would be invalid, so GW will never do this, they have said with the introduction of version 7 any future changes will be evolutions not revolutions.
If your argumnet is that it is to help differentiate the value of certain units against other units, in or out of the smae army then look back at points 2 and 3.

Urgat
11-06-2008, 23:19
Well sure. If you want to take it in an army-wide context, goblins also has the possibility of a Waaagh! move, greatly increasing their chances of getting a charge.


?
Unless they have a hero with them, the only benefit they get from the waaagh is to take wounds, gobs don't add their rank bonuses to the roll, you know.




I guess one alternative would be to work out a minimum playable unit size (20 works for Goblins) and say something like:

One unit of Goblins is 20 models including a champion, a standard bearer and a musician. The unit is armed with hand weapons and wear light armour. Cost: 75 points. Options: The unit may armed with short bows (+15 points), or shields (+15 points), or spears (+15 points), or spears and shields (+25 points). Add any number of goblin rank-and-file models (+3 points per model added).

-T10

What if I don't want a banner and/or a champion? Would be a pain to calculate VP, too.

Gazak Blacktoof
12-06-2008, 00:02
What if I don't want a banner and/or a champion? Would be a pain to calculate VP, too.

Units don't need to have command groups included in their base cost. However for general rank and file its odd for them not to have a full compliment.

I'm sure T10's comments were just an idea of a direction that could be taken rather than a precisely worded ironclad rule.

VPs are easy to calculate. They are based on the unit's starting cost and numbers.

I believe CvT's Conqueror rules (pinned to the top of the rules development sub-forum) only allow you to purchase units in complete units and ranks. The cost of additions to a unit aren't based on the increase in the unit's size (like in warhammer) but instead on what those models add to the unit's abilities within the game.

Zilverug
12-06-2008, 11:08
Introducing half points would only create even more options for GW to choose a silly point cost. Still, maths is fun!

Urgat
12-06-2008, 13:09
Units don't need to have command groups included in their base cost. However for general rank and file its odd for them not to have a full compliment.

Odd? There's nothing odd with not wanting to give free VP to the enemy by not giving a standard to a sacrifiable unit of gobs, really.
That being said, that's another silly rule that needs to go or be changed, the VP for captured standards. You'll get the same amount of points for a goblin standard and for a fat unit of temple guards or knights of the blood keep. I hate that.