PDA

View Full Version : Applying Point Cost to Age of Sigmar Models.



Last Edition
04-07-2015, 12:23
Hey all!
First of all, I want Age of Sigmar to be a good game. I loved the earlier Warhammer skirmish games, like Necromunda, Mordheim and Gorkamorka, but I can’t get over the no point cost system GW is trying to push on us, and I don’t like the sudden death system...frankly, I hate it.

So where to go from here? I have been designing various editions of the unofficial Warhammer Norse Army Book since 4th edition, so I have been meddling with point costs for a long time. I don’t suggest my system is perfect, but it does provide a foundation, which can be developed over time...if you so desire. Keep in mind, these points NEED to be play tested and in no way balance AoS right off the bat, but its here for those who wish to play around with points and army building (Still need a Force Organization chart). I wasn't sure if I should share this or not, but if only a single gaming group finds this useful, its worth it.

Instead of me making points for every army list, I’d rather share how I go about calculating the points and you can do it yourself for your own army. See Link to download document bottom of post.

PDF - AGE OF SIGMAR PLAYER'S HANDBOOK
LINK: http://docdro.id/20f5WZr

POLLING SITE by Alti Elfi:
LINK: http://www.aoscomp.org/home.html


Grim S.

explorator
04-07-2015, 12:35
I was working this out in my head, but you have a much stronger grasp. This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks a lot for working it out.

I will take some time to run some of these numbers, thanks again.

HJFudge
04-07-2015, 12:38
I had a similar idea. Here is my Math, so to speak, for a point based AoS

War Force Chart


Small/Mid/Large


Army consists of 1-8/12/16 Warscrolls
No single warscroll can be over 30/50/70 Base Models


Must contain at least 1 Hero Keyword. Can contain no more than 2/3/5 Hero Keywords.


May contain 0-1/2/4 Monster Keywords
May contain 0-1/2/4 War Machine Keywords


May not take more than 1/2/3 Copies of any one warscroll


Total Woundcount of army not to exceed 650/1000/1500 Modified wounds




For total Modified woundcount, take unit, add wounds + (7-base save).
If unit has 1 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 1.2
If unit has 2 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 1.5
If unit has 3 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 2
If unit has more than 4 base attacks, +1 to the wound calculation
If unit has any negative trait, -1 to the wound calculation (minimum of 1 wound cost)
If unit has base positive trait, +1 to the wound calculation for EACH base positive trait. Note: Base positive trait is something that does NOT rely on another friendly model or specific weapon type to activate
If unit has Movement bonus of 8 or more, +1 to the wound calculation
If unit is a warmachine, add wounds of total crew to wound calculation
If unit has a Tier Bonus, add +1 to the wound calculation (example, unit of 20 skeleton warriors will have +1 cost per unit as opposed to 10 skeleton warriors)
If unit is a hero, monster or warmachine, instead of any multipliers as before simply times total cost by 10


Round Down Costs.




Examples: 30 skeleton archers w/ full command would be a total of 30*(1+(7-6=1)+1TIER)*1.5= 135 Wounds
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer would be 40*(1+(7-6)+1TIER)*1= 120 wounds
10 Chaos Warriors w/ Full command would be 10*(2+(7-4))*1.5=75 wounds
20 Chaos Warriors w/ Aspiring Champion would be 20*(2+(7-4))+1TIER)*1.2= 144 wounds
50 Skaven Slaves w/ Paw Leader and no slings would be 50*(1+(7-6)-1NEG)*1=50 wounds
16 Pheonix Guard w/ Full command would be 16*(1+(7-4)+2POS)*1.5= 144 wounds
1 Terrorgheist would be 1*(14+(7-5)+3POS)*10= 190 wounds
1 Warsphinx would be 1*(12+(7-4)+2POS)*10=170 wounds
1 Chaos Warshrine would be 1*(12+(7-4)+2POS+1MOV)*10=180 wounds
5 Necro Knights w/Full command would be 5*(5+(7-5)+2POS+1MOV+1ATT)*2=110 wounds
3 Skullcrushers w/Aspiring Champion would be 3*(5+(7-4)+2POS+1MOV+1ATT)*2=72 wounds
1 Lich Priest would be 1*(5+(7-6)+2POS)*10=80 Wounds


Obviously the system is not perfect. This is just a first blush attempt at balance.
I discounted most positive traits that relied on you having something over having something else (i.e shields vs double hand weapons)
I...might have ****ed up my own math? So if I did forgive me. But this seems like a solid 'starting point'. I realize it does not take
into account a few things such as bravery or movement differences of troops under 8 inches, or the differing ranges of ranged units.
This may be a big mistake, depending on how things play...Im especially afraid im underestimating the difference between movement 4 and movement 6.
But as movement no longer counts 'on the charge'...well, I dunno. I decided not to worry about it for now.


Example Mid Tier Tomb Kings list: 1492 total
Hero Section (3 of 3)


1 Lich Priest = 80
1 Casket of Souls = 130
1 Tomb King = 110


Total Cost = 320


Monster Section (2 of 2)


1 Warsphinx = 170
1 Bone Giant = 140


Total Cost = 310


War Machine (2 of 2)


Screaming Skull Catapult x2 = 130 (260)


Total Cost = 260


Other (5)


5 Necro Knights w/ Full Command = 110
5 Necro Knights w/ Full Command = 110
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer = 120
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer = 120
18 Tomb Guard w/Full Command = 142


Total Cost = 602

Last Edition
04-07-2015, 13:12
I was working this out in my head, but you have a much stronger grasp. This is exactly what I was looking for, thanks a lot for working it out.

I will take some time to run some of these numbers, thanks again.

Happy to of assistance :)


I had a similar idea. Here is my Math, so to speak, for a point based AoS

War Force Chart


Small/Mid/Large


Army consists of 1-8/12/16 Warscrolls
No single warscroll can be over 30/50/70 Base Models


Must contain at least 1 Hero Keyword. Can contain no more than 2/3/5 Hero Keywords.


May contain 0-1/2/4 Monster Keywords
May contain 0-1/2/4 War Machine Keywords


May not take more than 1/2/3 Copies of any one warscroll

This I like. Specially the use of Keywords to limit a force. :yes:



Total Woundcount of army not to exceed 650/1000/1500 Modified wounds




For total Modified woundcount, take unit, add wounds + (7-base save).
If unit has 1 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 1.2
If unit has 2 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 1.5
If unit has 3 of any of the following: ranged, containing 2 or more command picks, more than 1 base attack, rending weapons, multiwound weapons times cost by 2
If unit has more than 4 base attacks, +1 to the wound calculation
If unit has any negative trait, -1 to the wound calculation (minimum of 1 wound cost)
If unit has base positive trait, +1 to the wound calculation for EACH base positive trait. Note: Base positive trait is something that does NOT rely on another friendly model or specific weapon type to activate
If unit has Movement bonus of 8 or more, +1 to the wound calculation
If unit is a warmachine, add wounds of total crew to wound calculation
If unit has a Tier Bonus, add +1 to the wound calculation (example, unit of 20 skeleton warriors will have +1 cost per unit as opposed to 10 skeleton warriors)
If unit is a hero, monster or warmachine, instead of any multipliers as before simply times total cost by 10


Round Down Costs.




Examples: 30 skeleton archers w/ full command would be a total of 30*(1+(7-6=1)+1TIER)*1.5= 135 Wounds
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer would be 40*(1+(7-6)+1TIER)*1= 120 wounds
10 Chaos Warriors w/ Full command would be 10*(2+(7-4))*1.5=75 wounds
20 Chaos Warriors w/ Aspiring Champion would be 20*(2+(7-4))+1TIER)*1.2= 144 wounds
50 Skaven Slaves w/ Paw Leader and no slings would be 50*(1+(7-6)-1NEG)*1=50 wounds
16 Pheonix Guard w/ Full command would be 16*(1+(7-4)+2POS)*1.5= 144 wounds
1 Terrorgheist would be 1*(14+(7-5)+3POS)*10= 190 wounds
1 Warsphinx would be 1*(12+(7-4)+2POS)*10=170 wounds
1 Chaos Warshrine would be 1*(12+(7-4)+2POS+1MOV)*10=180 wounds
5 Necro Knights w/Full command would be 5*(5+(7-5)+2POS+1MOV+1ATT)*2=110 wounds
3 Skullcrushers w/Aspiring Champion would be 3*(5+(7-4)+2POS+1MOV+1ATT)*2=72 wounds
1 Lich Priest would be 1*(5+(7-6)+2POS)*10=80 Wounds


Obviously the system is not perfect. This is just a first blush attempt at balance.
I discounted most positive traits that relied on you having something over having something else (i.e shields vs double hand weapons)
I...might have ****ed up my own math? So if I did forgive me. But this seems like a solid 'starting point'. I realize it does not take
into account a few things such as bravery or movement differences of troops under 8 inches, or the differing ranges of ranged units.
This may be a big mistake, depending on how things play...Im especially afraid im underestimating the difference between movement 4 and movement 6.
But as movement no longer counts 'on the charge'...well, I dunno. I decided not to worry about it for now.


Example Mid Tier Tomb Kings list: 1492 total
Hero Section (3 of 3)


1 Lich Priest = 80
1 Casket of Souls = 130
1 Tomb King = 110


Total Cost = 320


Monster Section (2 of 2)


1 Warsphinx = 170
1 Bone Giant = 140


Total Cost = 310


War Machine (2 of 2)


Screaming Skull Catapult x2 = 130 (260)


Total Cost = 260


Other (5)


5 Necro Knights w/ Full Command = 110
5 Necro Knights w/ Full Command = 110
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer = 120
40 Skeleton Warriors w/ Standard Bearer = 120
18 Tomb Guard w/Full Command = 142


Total Cost = 602

This is another way to go, good work. I do share your concerns of not taking Move, bravery, Ranges, etc into account, but who knows. Maybe this system works better than mine. Only time and battles will tell ;)

Your Tomb Kings list looks good!

HelloKitty
04-07-2015, 13:26
i'm working osmething similar for an event coming up but my points are not the traditional points. rather, a weak unit is 1 point, etc...

HJFudge
04-07-2015, 13:33
As Last Edition said, there are probably many ways to go about balancing things in AoS. I think its a good thing we are all trying wildly varying ways so we can find out what works, what doesnt, and hopefully evolve into a nice system of sorts for those who like the AoS rules but want some structure.

bobix
04-07-2015, 13:52
Hey all!
First of all, I want Age of Sigmar to be a good game. I loved the earlier Warhammer skirmish games, like Necromunda, Mordheim and Gorkamorka, but I can’t get over the no point cost system GW is trying to push on us, and I don’t like the sudden death system...frankly, I hate it.

So where to go from here? I have been designing various editions of the unofficial Warhammer Norse Army Book since 4th edition, so I have been meddling with point costs for a long time. I don’t suggest my system is perfect, but it does provide a foundation, which can be developed over time...if you so desire. Keep in mind, these points NEED to be play tested and in no way balance AoS right off the bat, but its here for those who wish to play around with points and army building (Still need a Force Organization chart). I wasn't sure if I should share this or not, but if only a single gaming group finds this useful, its worth it.

Instead of me making points for every army list, I’d rather share how I go about calculating the points and you can do it yourself for your own army. See Link to download document bottom of post.

Here are the points I got with this system for my Dark Elves ( note, might contain errors ;) )
HEROES:
Dreadlord: 150 points / on Cold One: 180 points / on Black Dragon: 715 points
Sorceress: 125 points / on Cold One: 155 points / on Black Dragon: 690 points
Master with Battle Standard: 100 points / on Dark Steed: 135 points
Beastmaster on Maniticore: 270 points
Black Ark Fleetmaster: 90 points
Death Hag: 90 points
Assassin: 100 points
Malekith, Witch King: 805 points
Malus Darkblade: 170 points
Morathi: 265 points
Hellebron: 140 points
Shadowblade: 130 points
Lokir Fellheart: 125 points

UNITS:
Black Ark Cosairs: 11 points
Darkshards: 13 points
Dreadspears: 9 points
Bleakswords: 9 points
Witch Elves: 10 points
Dark Riders: 32 points
Black Guards: 15 points
Shades: 16 points
Harpies: 12 points
Har Ganeth Executioners: 13 points
Sisters of Slaughter: 12 points
Doomfire Warlocks: 45 points
Cold One Knights: 38 points

MONSTERS:
War Hydra: 315 points
Kharibdyss: 300 points
Bloodwrack Madusae: 85 points

WAR MACHINES:
Scourgerunner Chariot: 145 points
Cold One Chariot: 135 points
[B]Bloodwrack Shrine: 240 points
Cauldron of Blood: 250 points
Reaper Bolt Thrower: 120 points


LINK: http://docdro.id/15k02


Grim S.

Great Job !

Whirlwind
04-07-2015, 18:06
Nice idea

If you were going to continue I'd start balancing the old basic core units first against the new sigmarines. After that you can focus on the elites and the characters as they can make such large differences depending on the faction.

In terms of the points system I think you may need to adjust the point system slightly at least. I found a rough points of Dwarf Warriors (HW/S) was actually outplayed the same amount of points with Goblins (with spears) 5 times over. I think mainly this was due to the lower resolve value of the goblins. Even 1/2 casualties meant that they were losing models to fleeing whereas the Dwarfs rarely lost any except in unusual circumstances (or a poor die roll). When there were double the number of goblins then the Dwarfs started losing. I'd try -1pt for every pt below resolve value 5 and see how that works.

Also on aside the measuring of model to model has got to go. It's terrible trying to figure out who is in range in a middle of a clump of models is just a frustrating exercise of poking models and knocking them. Base to base is the way to go.

Last Edition
04-07-2015, 18:17
Great Job !

Thanks, appreciated :)


Nice idea

If you were going to continue I'd start balancing the old basic core units first against the new sigmarines. After that you can focus on the elites and the characters as they can make such large differences depending on the faction.

In terms of the points system I think you may need to adjust the point system slightly at least. I found a rough points of Dwarf Warriors (HW/S) was actually outplayed the same amount of points with Goblins (with spears) 5 times over. I think mainly this was due to the lower resolve value of the goblins. Even 1/2 casualties meant that they were losing models to fleeing whereas the Dwarfs rarely lost any except in unusual circumstances (or a poor die roll). When there were double the number of goblins then the Dwarfs started losing. I'd try -1pt for every pt below resolve value 5 and see how that works.

Also on aside the measuring of model to model has got to go. It's terrible trying to figure out who is in range in a middle of a clump of models is just a frustrating exercise of poking models and knocking them. Base to base is the way to go.

I haven't looked at Grots yet, but sure, I may have to adjust the system to fit (haven't stumbled upon any units with less than 5 Bravery). -1 for each point below 5 sounds like the way to go, Ill check it out later today. I am currently writing a pdf file that includes all points for all armies and army composition. If people would calculate their armies with this system, I would highly appreciate they post the points here and i'll add them to the PDF :)

lvl-2-rat
04-07-2015, 20:23
calculating models cost:


Core stats




Total number of wounds x 3 :




Movement:
1”-4” = 1 point
5”-8”= 2 points
8“+=3 points




Bravery:
1-5 = 1 point
6-8 = 2 points
9-10 = 3 points




Save:
6+ =1 point
5+ =2 points
4+ =3 points
3+=4 points







Best damage output (either in shooting, close combat or hero fase)




Range:
0”-4” = 0 points
4”-8” = 1 points
8”+ =2 points




To hit:
6+ = 1 point
5+ = 2 points
4+ = 3 points
3+ = 4 points

(if multiple calculate average)




To wound:
6+ = 1 point
5+ = 2 points
4+ = 3 points
3+ = 4 points




Rend:
-1 = 1 point
- 2 = 2points
- 3 = 3 points




Damage output = attacks x damage

Attacks (1 point each)

Damage (1 point each)

if random calculate average:
D3 = 2
D6 = 3.5







Traits




positive trait that affects the only the model itself: 1 point
(5 if hero, monster or warmachine)




Positive traits that affects the unit (standards, musicians and so on) 5 points




positive trait with a bubble ( x inch radius)
7 points




negative trait -1point










total:






Empty sheet for calculating:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18fXhsIHMNU3K3jENt8OR0GOSFILf74vDR_dvfBmxBVg/edit?usp=sharing

Example: Empire archer 20 points
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zCTD35DPJZCmR9prhuS7VED4iaZpQjKa5_6mbGUnZRA/edit?usp=sharing

Example: Giant 72 points

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xE7NcJ3tYvKNUBhWvHcXPg9WWKTMnGAPlDXH-IQUaPA/edit?usp=sharing

please comment ... i do cnsider changing the wound multiplier to 4 or 5?

Last Edition
04-07-2015, 20:40
First point cost for two armies are done: Ogres and Dark Elves. Also, guideline how to build your force is included. More to come.

celerity
05-07-2015, 09:08
Great work! Age of Sigmar is obviously in need of this. My only concern with the points formula is that it seems to undervalue attacks. A unit with 2 5+ attacks costs less than a unit with one 4+ attack despite having a higher average and higher potential kill rate. The other issue with the attack point formula is that unlike your excellent wound system it does not consider coefficients, having to wound 2+ is obviously way better on a model with 6 attacks than it is one.

celerity
05-07-2015, 10:05
Great work! Just one concern with the points formula. Attacks seem undervalued. A model with 2 5+ attacks costs less than a model with 1 4+ attack despite a higher average damage output. Despite this the points costs look pretty tightly balanced, much better than the ones GW would have produced. Let me know which armies you would like me to point up so I can give you a hand with this.

lvl-2-rat
05-07-2015, 10:20
I've made a system - it's a bit complicated. but should consider all stats, durability and dmg output:

calculating models cost:

Core stats



Total number of wounds x 3 x armor multiplier:

Armor multiplier:

Save:
6+ =(6/5)
5+ = (6/4)
4+ =2
3+=3
2+=6




Movement:
1”-4” = 1 point
5”-8”= 2 points
8“+=3 points




Bravery:
1-5 = 1 point
6-8 = 2 points
9-10 = 3 points






Best damage output (either in shooting, close combat or hero fase)




Range:
0”-4” = 0 points
4”-8” = 1 points
8”+ =2 points




To hit:
6+ = 1 point
5+ = 2 points
4+ = 3 points
3+ = 4 points

(if multiple calculate average)




To wound:
6+ = 1 point
5+ = 2 points
4+ = 3 points
3+ = 4 points




Rend:
-1 = 1 point
- 2 = 2points
- 3 = 3 points




Damage output = attacks x damage

Attacks (1 point each)

Damage (1 point each)

if random calculate average:
D3 = 2
D6 = 3.5






Traits



positive trait that affects the only the model itself: 1 point (5 if hero, monster or warmachine)




Positive traits that affects the unit (standards, musicians and so on) 5 points




positive trait with a bubble ( x inch radius)
7 points




negative trait -1point









total:








examples:

Giant:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xE7NcJ3tYvKNUBhWvHcXPg9WWKTMnGAPlDXH-IQUaPA

Empire Archer:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zCTD35DPJZCmR9prhuS7VED4iaZpQjKa5_6mbGUnZ RA

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 10:24
Thanks, much appreciated :)
Yup, you are correct. I will modify the document with the following changes. 5+ To Hit/Wound = -1, and 6+ To Hit/Wound = -3. By this change the two examples you gave costs 1 point each, which is fine; 2 attacks on 5+ has higher potential, but 1 attack on 4+ average better.

The following Armies are done: Ogres, Dark Elves, Bretonnia, Tomb Kings, Chaos Warriors and Beastmen

EDIT: Minimum cost for a model is also 2 points.

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 10:28
Hi, good to see you are still working on this, but the balance needs to be looked at in your method before you get any further.

I have trialed some Ironguts (55pts) so a bit higher than your vs Dwarf Warriors (11pts). 3 Ironguts vs 15 Dwarfs just ends in the Dwarfs being slaughtered with maybe one Irongut down unless you are really lucky. The Ironguts are just putting out too much damage over a small area and combined with battleshock two or more hits just devastates the unit. E.g. 2 hits = 6 wounds, which is 6 dead plus on average about 1/2 battleshock dead (with Dwarf banner). That's most of the unit so hitting back is relatively ineffectual next round and the ogres then just massacre them next round. If 3 or 4 (9/12 wounds!) hits go through (statistically plausible) then the Dwarf unit just evaporates.

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 10:49
Okey, have I underestimated Damage characteristic again? :P Not surprized.. Thanks, will look into this right away.

celerity
05-07-2015, 11:29
Thinking about it wounds need some serious readjustment. At the moment 4 wounds adds a multiplier of 2.5. This assumes an advantage in having 4 models over 1 tough model, which would have been the case in previous editions. However unless I have misread damage gets carried over so Ironguts kill 3 dwarves per successful hit. A model with 4 wounds is now actually significantly stronger than 4 1 wound models as his damage output is not being reduced with each wound. In the case of the 4 dwarves they lose an attack each time. maybe increase the value of wounds on the points formula by a factor of 2 or 2.5? Also not wanting to be pedantic but 2 5+ attacks have a higher average out put than 1 4+ , imagine 9 attacks, 1 third of that is 3 hits where as half that number of attacks at 4+ = 4.5 attacks half of which is 2.25 hits.

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 12:01
I have done as following: All is the same, but if a model has a Damage characteristic above 1, those points over, are added to the models Wounds when calculating model Cost.

Example: An Irongut's Damage is 3. His End Cost is 22. Now add his Damage to his Wounds, which gives us a total of 7. Look at table in document (7 wounds = X 4.0) and you will find that you must calculate the End Cost by 4.0 (22 X 4). Model cost for an Irongut is 88 points per model.

Im gonna look over single wound models, how this affect them, but it seems to address the Damage Characteristic problem with Ogres.

Another thing I saw while testing out Dwarfs Vs IRonguts / Ogres, if only the Dwarfs did 2, 3 or 4 wounds, the battleshock tests for Ogres became scary; Battleshock test missed by 2, and 2 full Ogres ran from the fight.

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 12:03
Hi, good to see you are still working on this, but the balance needs to be looked at in your method before you get any further.

I have trialed some Ironguts (55pts) so a bit higher than your vs Dwarf Warriors (11pts). 3 Ironguts vs 15 Dwarfs just ends in the Dwarfs being slaughtered with maybe one Irongut down unless you are really lucky. The Ironguts are just putting out too much damage over a small area and combined with battleshock two or more hits just devastates the unit. E.g. 2 hits = 6 wounds, which is 6 dead plus on average about 1/2 battleshock dead (with Dwarf banner). That's most of the unit so hitting back is relatively ineffectual next round and the ogres then just massacre them next round. If 3 or 4 (9/12 wounds!) hits go through (statistically plausible) then the Dwarf unit just evaporates.

I calculated Dwarf Warriors to be 8 points. Did you calculate both weapons into the cost? Only apply equipped weapons to the cost, and apply the most expensive one. (usually very close in price)

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 12:04
Yes, this is correct; Ironguts need to lose 4 wounds before their output is decreased. The advantage Ironguts has is their damage potential density. It starts to get really difficult to get more than about 15 - 20 Dwarf models in combat that can actually hit with a 1" range. Hence it is really difficult for the Dwarfs damage output in any one round to equal the Ironguts - so you have to have the numbers to grind out the victory.

This is also slightly compounded by the Pile In moves. I have yet to find a battle report that plays pile in's correctly. The rules are that you can pile in up to 3" to the closest enemy model. Most battle reports seem to be playing a maximise frontage (which is not surprising because it is the 40k mechanism). It's a subtle difference but actually quite import. If you arrange the ogres in a triangle formation it can result in the dwarfs having to pile in toward the ogre on the point. Hence you get a lot of Dwarfs piled at the back of the unit waiting there turn and putting them put of combat reach whilst the ogres remain in combat with just a few. The only way round this is if the Dwarfs get a good charge and surround the Ironguts before the pile in move (as the charge move can be in any direction as long as all models stay within 1" of another model and the unit isn't split). If the Ironguts get the charge however...

On an aside we aren't playing distances to models but just base to base. We were finding too many models were getting clipped; being nudged; occasionally knocked over which was PITA when you had to try and remember where they were!

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 12:08
Another thing I saw while testing out Dwarfs Vs IRonguts / Ogres, if only the Dwarfs did 2, 3 or 4 wounds, the battleshock tests for Ogres became scary; Battleshock test missed by 2, and 2 full Ogres ran from the fight.

No this is wrong. Battleshock only works on number of models slain not wounds. So for 2/3 wounds on the ironguts they don't have to even test for battleshock as there were no casualties. For 4 wounds you only get a +1 modifier as their is one casualty. Compare this to Dwarfs, 4 wounds on them is a +4 penalty to battleshock.

celerity
05-07-2015, 12:12
Last Edition>Just had a look at the profile for Iron guts. An Iron gut produces an average of 3 wounds with rending. A Dwarf Warrior produces .33 wounds without rending. The Iron gut also has 4 wounds and a better save, call it 5-6 times the toughness. On top of that it can bring all of its attacks to bear far more easily than the more numerous dwarves. On average 32 Dwarf attacks will kill an Iron Gut. An Iron Gut kills 1.8 Dwarves per attack. At a rough guess 30 Dwarves vs 3 Iron Guts is an even fight if both sides get to deploy all their attacks each turn, much easier for the Ogres. However there are advantages to a large number of models , protecting other units from charges for example. So I am thinking that if the formula throws out somewhere near 1 to 10 for Ironguts vs dwarf warriors we are probably getting nearer the mark. Dwarf Warriors 8 Iron Guts 11 seems good.
Whirlwind> I had not noticed the pile in rule you are absolutely right,in your experience do you feel that 8 pt warriors have a chance of getting the same utility as 88 pt Iron guts. I have to admit I have not had time to play yet and am just theorycrafting at the moment

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 12:16
I calculated Dwarf Warriors to be 8 points. Did you calculate both weapons into the cost? Only apply equipped weapons to the cost, and apply the most expensive one. (usually very close in price)

The difference I think is coming from that I include the special abilities as +1 pt each. Also I prefer to calculate the points separately for the differently equipped models rather than generic upper cost one. Though it baffles me why anyone would take HW/S combo now. As you can use the GW/S arrangement and get the extra rend point. This is what annoys me about some of these battlescrolls 4+,3+ is the same as 3+,4+

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 12:18
@Whirlwind
Correct you are. Damn, 8th edition need to get out of my head hehe.

@Celerity
Seems 1 Irongut to 10 Dwarf Warriors is nearer to the mark. But we will have to see after the whole dwarf list is done. Dwarf might get "cheap" war machines to shoot the Ogres before combat, for example...

celerity
05-07-2015, 12:23
That is a good catch whirlwind, A unit of 3 Ironguts is only affected by Battleshock if 2 die in one turn and the remaining one rolls a 6.

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 13:06
Whirlwind> I had not noticed the pile in rule you are absolutely right,in your experience do you feel that 8 pt warriors have a chance of getting the same utility as 88 pt Iron guts. I have to admit I have not had time to play yet and am just theorycrafting at the moment

No is the short answer. Small frontage, elite units, with high wounds are going to take centre stage I think. Keep them clumped with a hero or two and you will likely barrel roll through anything in your way. The only advantage these type of units will have is that they should be able to tie up multiple units at one time. But if they are say against ogres they aren't going to last long. There may be some units that break this trend such as zombies as you can take a unit of 50 that is then hitting and wounding automatically and can be added to if you have a few necromancers at the back; which makes the game one of attrition.

The other concern is that we are now talking about 10 Dwarfs per Irongut; this is more models than in WFB (which was about 5 per Irongut). Many of the complaints against WFB was the high model count. What we are showing here is that you will need even more 1 wound, 1 attack models than was required previously, which isn't going to happen. I fear these types of units have a limited lifespan. Never mind the issue it creates for sudden death. They may be OK where you could keep summoning them but this is only available for a few armies (Lizardmen, Daemons and Undead); hence units such a Dwarf Warriors are just going to be poor counterparts. Trying to balance those that can summoned versus those cannot is going to be hard I think.

Last Edition
05-07-2015, 13:51
The other concern is that we are now talking about 10 Dwarfs per Irongut; this is more models than in WFB (which was about 5 per Irongut). Many of the complaints against WFB was the high model count. What we are showing here is that you will need even more 1 wound, 1 attack models than was required previously, which isn't going to happen. I fear these types of units have a limited lifespan. Never mind the issue it creates for sudden death. They may be OK where you could keep summoning them but this is only available for a few armies (Lizardmen, Daemons and Undead); hence units such a Dwarf Warriors are just going to be poor counterparts. Trying to balance those that can summoned versus those cannot is going to be hard I think.
Well, luckly it isn't that black and white. Points (10 models to 1) is just there to create a even playing field for two players. The dwarf player isn't going to bring 30 Dwarf Warriors to handle 3 Ironguts, but rather 3 units of 5 to screen charges (if possible) and still have points for a cannon to possibly shoot the Ironguts off the table. We can't compare units vs units in a vacuum. The more I try to figure out the Ironguts, I'm starting to believe they are just too good, borderline broken even. They should have been either 5+ Save and Damage 3, or 4+ Save and Damage 2. They would still be a brutal unit with those stats...

Whirlwind
05-07-2015, 17:06
Yes I agree you can't look at things in a vacuum. Btu what I would do is start with in isolation make sure they balance against each other (it will get easier once you have a few ironed out because you will get a feel for how stats will equate). Then you can take several of these core units and play them against each other. Tweak the points until again they become balanced. Then start adding in characters with abilities; replay game, tweak points of characters depending on how they affect the game. Finally start adding in extra bits to units and again replay armies against each other (making sure all units are included at some point) and re balance.

Unfortunately although you can start with a formulaic approach it doesn't get round the roll dice at each other for several games to see how things fare. But it is laborious and time consuming; which is one reason why I think this game and 40k codexes are getting out of whack recently because not enough playtesting is going on (after all must be difficult at GW to explain to their manager that they need another member of staff just to play games all the time!)

Last Edition
06-07-2015, 12:31
Document is updated with Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Beastmen, Bretonnia and Ogres.

HelloKitty
06-07-2015, 12:35
Nice work I like the formatting.

HJFudge
06-07-2015, 13:28
Document is updated with Dark Elves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Beastmen, Bretonnia and Ogres.

Link: http://docdro.id/15ra0

I really, really like it. I dunno if I agree with the new spells for tomb king/vamp counts BUT I do agree SOMETHING had to be done about summoning. Besides nit picking a bit about different costs here and there, I like it and its awesome. Good job

Last Edition
06-07-2015, 13:50
Thanks to both :)

Yup, something had to be done. I have no clue have the game designer were thinking adding those spells, but it is what it is. Up to us to change it into something playable, I guess.

High Elves, Empire and Skaven should be up later today.

Katastrophe
06-07-2015, 14:21
I think that you have done a great job. I would have tried to just use the 8th points but I do see where yours ups the costs of things that improved drastically in the new "game" (used loosely of course). Are you going to do all armies, including the 2 included in the game?

Last Edition
06-07-2015, 14:25
Thanks Katastrophe.

First thing I tried was slapping on 8th points, but that didn't in most cases - would be great if that worked! Yes, I am doing all armies, including both armies that come in the box :)

ahva
07-07-2015, 04:36
Is there anything I can do to help speed this up so we can have every army being the first point system out there will make people flock to your point system over everyone else my Warhammer group is very interested in having all the points for every army the sooner you get it done the sooner everyone can start enjoying Age of Sigmar your points are amazing for the first try at making a balanced point system and over the months I am sure we can make this almost perfect when your done you should submit it to Army builder and maybe they can actually put your points in that system so people will really start using it also I don't know how well you are at writing rules but I think a short like 4-10 page 9th edition rule book would be awesome keeping what's great from Age of Sigmar while giving the fantasy players a little of what's familiar from 8th just basic 8th movement a little more simplified maybe and then combat could stay the same really just the strategy of movement is what a lot of players seem to want at the moment. Maybe not being able to charge from your back arc and moving backwards is only at half speed and all models in the unit must be facing the same way when the movement phase is done for that unit that way round bases and square bases would both work still also measuring from the middle of the models base would be a much better measuring tool since a lot of models just stick out way to far to measure from any part of the model I think Age of Sigmar rules are great just need the movement part changed.

someone2040
07-07-2015, 08:02
Really like what I'm seeing. Totally along the lines of how I would've fixed undead (larger things can only be healed, smaller things can potentially be summoned).
It's just not very fun to play against Undead when they can summon tough things on a 7+ (like Morghasts, who in turn also make it easier to summon more Undead).

Looking forward to seeing what happens with the rest of the armies.

TheRedDuke
07-07-2015, 10:51
I calculated the points for Empire. I may have made mistakes and I didnt do the Special Characters.. Should I post them here or do you not need them ?


Edit here they are :
EMPIRE

Grand Master

81





Shield 4pts






Empire General

69





Lance (5pts), Great Weapon (free), Horse (7pts), Shield (4pts)






General of the Empire on Imperial Griffon

357





Shield 4pts, Runefang 9pts; Lance 5pts, Warhammer (free)






Demigryph Knights

60





Perceptor 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts




Empire Knights

27









Perceptor 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts




Reiksguard Knights

29









Reikscaptain 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts




Empire Crossbowmen

13









Marksman 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts




Empire Handgunners

20









Marksman 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Hochland Long Rifle (8pts), Repeater Handgun (6pts)




Empire Archers

16









Marksman 5pts










Empire Greatswords

13









Counts Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts




Empire Pistoliers

35









Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Repeater Handgun (6pts)




Empire Outriders

38









Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Repeater Handgun (6pts), Grenade Launching Blunderbuss (2pts)




Empire State Troops

15









Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts










Empire Free Company Militia

12









Militia Leader 5pts










Empire Master Engineer

63









Artisan Reaper Pistol (2pts), Hochland Long Rifle (11pts), Pistol and Repeater Handgun (free),




Empire Master Engineer on mechanical Steed

90









Artisan Reaper Pistol (2pts), Hochland Long Rifle (11pts), Pistol and Repeater Handgun (free), Blunderbuss (3pts)




Empire Cannon

140









Empire Mortar

112









Hellblaster Volley Gun

100









Hellstorm Rocket Blaster

120









Empire Steam Tank

364









The War Altar of Sigmar

468









Warrior Priest

132









Witch Hunter (Greatsword 2pts)

69









Empire Flagellants Warband

17









Prophet of Doom (6pts)










Celestial Hurricanum

210









Celestial Wizard (42 pts)










Empire Battle Wizard

153









Horse (7pts)










Empire Battle Wizard on Imperial Griffon

567









Luminark of Hysh

254









Wizard (52pts)




























































A friend of mine did Skaven aswell












hanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Projectors) 1072
Thanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Braziers) 1088
Grey Seer 224
Screaming Bell 595
Lord Skreech Verminking 690
Verminlord Warbringer 623
Verminlord Corruptor 787
Verminlord Deceiver 645
Verminlord Warpseer 915
Queek Headtaker 123
Warlord Spinetail 88
Tretch Craventail 69
Warlord (Warpforged Blade) 70
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades) 69
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade) 81
Warlord (Warpforged Blade+Clanshild) 74
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades+Clanshield) 72
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade+Clanshield) 84
Chieftain with Batle Standard 43
Clanrats (Rusty Spear) 6
Clanrats (Rusty Blade) 6
Clanrat-Clawleader (Kommando) 5
Clanrat-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Clanrat-Bell Chimbers (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin (no shield) 12
Stormvermin (shield) 13
Stormvermin-Fangleader (Kommando) 5
Stormvermin-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin-Pack Drummers (Kommando) 10
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears) 4
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade) 6
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears+Scavenged Shield) 5
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade+Scavenged Shield) 7
Skavenslaves (Slings) 5,5
Skavenslaves-Pawleader (Kommando) 3
Skavenslaves-Bell Chimers (Kommando) 10
Ikit Claw 508,5
Warlock Engineer 234,5
Doom-Flayer Weapon Team 45
Ratling Gun Weapon Team 40
Warpfire Thrower Weapon Team 20
Warp-Grinder Weapon Team 42
Poisoned Wind Mortar Weapon Team 70
Poisoned Wind Globadiers 16,5
Warplock Jezzails 48
Doomwheel 145
Warp Lightning Cannon 52,5
Stormfiends (Doomflayer) 90
Stormfiends (Shock Gauntlets) 81
Stormfiends (Grinderfists) 100
Stormfiends (Warpfire Projectors) 84
Stormfiends (Windlaunchers) 104
Stormfiends (Ratling Cannon) 105
Throt the Unclean 112
Packmaster Skweel Gnawtooth 80,5
Packmaster (Whipe and Blade) 24
Packmaster (Whipe and Things-catcher) 25
Packmaster (Shock-Prod) 39
Giant Rats 4
Rat Swarm 32,5
Rat Ogres (no Warpfire Gun) 42
Rat Ogres (Warpfire Gun) 66
Hell Pit Abomination (no Warpstone Spikes) 307,5
Hell Pit Abomination (Warpstonespikes) 315
Lord Skrolk 256
Plague Priest 206,5
Plague Furnace 602
Plague Monks (Pair of Foetid Blades) 9
Plague Monks (Foetid Blade+Woe-stave) 6
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Plague Scroll) 10
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Book of Woes) 10
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Contagion Banners) 15
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Icon of Pestilence) 15
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Doom Goog) 10
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Bale-chime) 10
Plague Censer Bearers 12
Plagueclaw Catapult 125
Deathmaster Snikch 105
Assassin (Weeping Blade) 63
Assassin (Fighting Claws) 57
Assassin (Weeping Blade+Throwing Stars) 80,5
Assassin (Fighting Claws+Throwing Stars) 72
Night Runners 12
Night Runners-Nightleader 5
Gutter Runners 17

TheRedDuke
07-07-2015, 12:47
Skaven


Thanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Projectors) 1072
Thanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Braziers) 1088
Grey Seer 224
Screaming Bell 595
Lord Skreech Verminking 690
Verminlord Warbringer 623
Verminlord Corruptor 787
Verminlord Deceiver 645
Verminlord Warpseer 915
Queek Headtaker 123
Warlord Spinetail 88
Tretch Craventail 69
Warlord (Warpforged Blade) 70
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades) 69
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade) 81
Warlord (Warpforged Blade+Clanshild) 74
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades+Clanshield) 72
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade+Clanshield) 84
Chieftain with Batle Standard 43
Clanrats (Rusty Spear) 6
Clanrats (Rusty Blade) 6
Clanrat-Clawleader (Kommando) 5
Clanrat-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Clanrat-Bell Chimbers (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin (no shield) 12
Stormvermin (shield) 13
Stormvermin-Fangleader (Kommando) 5
Stormvermin-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin-Pack Drummers (Kommando) 10
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears) 4
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade) 6
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears+Scavenged Shield) 5
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade+Scavenged Shield) 7
Skavenslaves (Slings) 5,5
Skavenslaves-Pawleader (Kommando) 3
Skavenslaves-Bell Chimers (Kommando) 10
Ikit Claw 508,5
Warlock Engineer 234,5
Doom-Flayer Weapon Team 45
Ratling Gun Weapon Team 40
Warpfire Thrower Weapon Team 20
Warp-Grinder Weapon Team 42
Poisoned Wind Mortar Weapon Team 70
Poisoned Wind Globadiers 16,5
Warplock Jezzails 48
Doomwheel 145
Warp Lightning Cannon 52,5
Stormfiends (Doomflayer) 90
Stormfiends (Shock Gauntlets) 81
Stormfiends (Grinderfists) 100
Stormfiends (Warpfire Projectors) 84
Stormfiends (Windlaunchers) 104
Stormfiends (Ratling Cannon) 105
Throt the Unclean 112
Packmaster Skweel Gnawtooth 80,5
Packmaster (Whipe and Blade) 24
Packmaster (Whipe and Things-catcher) 25
Packmaster (Shock-Prod) 39
Giant Rats 4
Rat Swarm 32,5
Rat Ogres (no Warpfire Gun) 42
Rat Ogres (Warpfire Gun) 66
Hell Pit Abomination (no Warpstone Spikes) 307,5
Hell Pit Abomination (Warpstonespikes) 315
Lord Skrolk 256
Plague Priest 206,5
Plague Furnace 602
Plague Monks (Pair of Foetid Blades) 9
Plague Monks (Foetid Blade+Woe-stave) 6
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Plague Scroll) 10
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Book of Woes) 10
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Contagion Banners) 15
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Icon of Pestilence) 15
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Doom Goog) 10
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Bale-chime) 10
Plague Censer Bearers 12
Plagueclaw Catapult 125
Deathmaster Snikch 105
Assassin (Weeping Blade) 63
Assassin (Fighting Claws) 57
Assassin (Weeping Blade+Throwing Stars) 80,5
Assassin (Fighting Claws+Throwing Stars) 72
Night Runners 12
Night Runners-Nightleader 5
Gutter Runners 17




Empire

Grand Master 81
Shield 4pts
Empire General 69
Lance (5pts), Great Weapon (free), Horse (7pts), Shield (4pts)
General of the Empire on Imperial Griffon 357
Shield 4pts, Runefang 9pts; Lance 5pts, Warhammer (free)
Demigryph Knights 60
Perceptor 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts
Empire Knights 27
Perceptor 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts
Reiksguard Knights 29
Reikscaptain 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts
Empire Crossbowmen 13
Marksman 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Shields 4pts
Empire Handgunners 20
Marksman 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Hochland Long Rifle (8pts), Repeater Handgun (6pts)
Empire Archers 16
Marksman 5pts
Empire Greatswords 13
Counts Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts
Empire Pistoliers 35
Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Repeater Handgun (6pts)
Empire Outriders 38
Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts, Repeater Handgun (6pts), Grenade Launching Blunderbuss (2pts)
Empire State Troops 15
Champion 5pts, Standard Bearer 10pts, Hornblower 10 pts
Empire Free Company Militia 12
Militia Leader 5pts
Empire Master Engineer 63
Artisan Reaper Pistol (2pts), Hochland Long Rifle (11pts), Pistol and Repeater Handgun (free),
Empire Master Engineer on mechanical Steed 90
Artisan Reaper Pistol (2pts), Hochland Long Rifle (11pts), Pistol and Repeater Handgun (free), Blunderbuss (3pts)
Empire Cannon 140
Empire Mortar 112
Hellblaster Volley Gun 100
Hellstorm Rocket Blaster 120
Empire Steam Tank 364
The War Altar of Sigmar 468
Warrior Priest 132
Witch Hunter (Greatsword 2pts) 69
Empire Flagellants Warband 17
Prophet of Doom (6pts)
Celestial Hurricanum 210
Celestial Wizard (42 pts)
Empire Battle Wizard 153
Horse (7pts)
Empire Battle Wizard on Imperial Griffon 567
Luminark of Hysh 254
Wizard on Luminark (52pts)


I hope this is useful for you. btw great project - keep up the good work

Galushi
07-07-2015, 14:29
In the formulas i made up in Excel (not using a plus/minus point thing but a far more overly complicated formula of probabilities trying to match point costs to balance trial match ups) I also got about 1 irongut to 10 dwarfs in points. Ironguts are definitely a strong option. And to who said that Ironguts might be too good, well, nothing is too good if the point cost is balanced =) I'm not terrible worried about the core Warrior effectiveness. They are largely kinda there to slow people down. I will say that Hammerers look to be about the power of Ironguts, 4 to 1. That fight would pretty much land with whoever went first.

Also, the comment about why you would take shields when you can go 2h'er for the extra rend: Dwarf shield wall is actually pretty nice. It generally is giving save rerolls as long as you dont run/charge. Combined with Ironbreaker armor, they are saving 75% of the time versus Rend -1 and Rend 0.

I know ranged might be a little OP with rules as written, (shooting into combat, shooting while in combat!) but i was planning on using a rule such as not being able to shoot while engaged (within melee weapon range of an enemy model) and shooting at engaged models gave a hit penalty, or maybe 1's hit friendlies instead.

HelloKitty
07-07-2015, 14:58
We're disallowing shooting into combat.

Another option is if you want to fire into combat, half your attacks are rolled against your own side.

vash1313
07-07-2015, 15:33
Just a quick edit I noticed in the army list PDF. The Bretonnian page's listing for banners and such has the text for the ogres. Also, you might use a different background for the ogre page - the picture makes it difficult to read some of the entries.

Last Edition
07-07-2015, 17:05
Is there anything I can do to help speed this up so we can have every army being the first point system out there will make people flock to your point system over everyone else my Warhammer group is very interested in having all the points for every army the sooner you get it done the sooner everyone can start enjoying Age of Sigmar your points are amazing for the first try at making a balanced point system and over the months I am sure we can make this almost perfect when your done you should submit it to Army builder and maybe they can actually put your points in that system so people will really start using it also I don't know how well you are at writing rules but I think a short like 4-10 page 9th edition rule book would be awesome keeping what's great from Age of Sigmar while giving the fantasy players a little of what's familiar from 8th just basic 8th movement a little more simplified maybe and then combat could stay the same really just the strategy of movement is what a lot of players seem to want at the moment. Maybe not being able to charge from your back arc and moving backwards is only at half speed and all models in the unit must be facing the same way when the movement phase is done for that unit that way round bases and square bases would both work still also measuring from the middle of the models base would be a much better measuring tool since a lot of models just stick out way to far to measure from any part of the model I think Age of Sigmar rules are great just need the movement part changed.

First of all, Thanks for the kind words :) I was hoping someone would help calculate some armies, but I think its best if one person does - one mindset, more consistanancy...maybe :P I'll try and pick up the speed, have some hours tonight I can use.
I am doing some amended rules to the 4 page ruleset, but that will just be very minor changed/corrections done over time. I am not one for doing heavy changed to a ruleset, unless its necessary (at that point you might just do a new one)
Amended rules will contain: clean up this measure model to model nonsense, One model in unit must be able to charge the enemy in a straight line (should add some tactical defensive movement to the game) and clean up shooting rules. More if needed, like Wounds instead of models for Battleshock, Unbinding: no range and maybe no line of sight... those comes to mind.


Really like what I'm seeing. Totally along the lines of how I would've fixed undead (larger things can only be healed, smaller things can potentially be summoned).
It's just not very fun to play against Undead when they can summon tough things on a 7+ (like Morghasts, who in turn also make it easier to summon more Undead).

Looking forward to seeing what happens with the rest of the armies.

Thanks :) HEhe no, summoning was not very fun. When the opponent manage to say: 'Poor you. Tell you what, I'll be kind and not summon anything this phase' :P


In the formulas i made up in Excel (not using a plus/minus point thing but a far more overly complicated formula of probabilities trying to match point costs to balance trial match ups) I also got about 1 irongut to 10 dwarfs in points. Ironguts are definitely a strong option. And to who said that Ironguts might be too good, well, nothing is too good if the point cost is balanced =) I'm not terrible worried about the core Warrior effectiveness. They are largely kinda there to slow people down. I will say that Hammerers look to be about the power of Ironguts, 4 to 1. That fight would pretty much land with whoever went first.

Also, the comment about why you would take shields when you can go 2h'er for the extra rend: Dwarf shield wall is actually pretty nice. It generally is giving save rerolls as long as you dont run/charge. Combined with Ironbreaker armor, they are saving 75% of the time versus Rend -1 and Rend 0.

I know ranged might be a little OP with rules as written, (shooting into combat, shooting while in combat!) but i was planning on using a rule such as not being able to shoot while engaged (within melee weapon range of an enemy model) and shooting at engaged models gave a hit penalty, or maybe 1's hit friendlies instead.

In this system, a Hammerer costs 13 points :P thats 6,5 (ish) hammerer per Irongut :)
What I meant with 'Too Good' is internal balance. Not everything can be balanced with a correct point per model, in my experience. Sometimes you run into units thats either too cheap or too expensive ;)


We're disallowing shooting into combat.

Another option is if you want to fire into combat, half your attacks are rolled against your own side.

Yeah, liking this. No matter what one might think about GW, I stumped how they missed basic rule like that...


Just a quick edit I noticed in the army list PDF. The Bretonnian page's listing for banners and such has the text for the ogres. Also, you might use a different background for the ogre page - the picture makes it difficult to read some of the entries.

You are correct. I have forgotten to add that. Thanks, will be fixed. :)

Skywave
07-07-2015, 20:18
I took a quick glance at it, and something bother me. It seems that you try to emulate the points scale of previous edition, where you have regular troops hovering around 10pts, and big monster and character on monster can be around 500pts.

From my limited experience with the game, basic troops now are very well capable of handling any dragon or big monster on their own (thanks to fixed to-hit and to-wound). Especially since units can get bonuses for being 20 or 30+, making big monster vulnerable to such unit.

That's why I think the previous structure need to be changed/adapted, as I don't see a dragon being worth 50 infantry right now.

Last Edition
07-07-2015, 20:52
Well, you are wrong that am trying to emulate the previous editions. I just came up with an way to calculate points, thats it.
If the units are undercosted compared to monsters, will off course come to light very soon :)

I can't stress this enough - I am not trying to find a perfect balance (thats a fail from the get-go with any formula to calculate points), I am just creating a framework to work on :)

Last Edition
07-07-2015, 22:53
Updated with High Elves, Orcs & Goblins and The Empire :)

Up to 9 armies now...getting there!

HJFudge
07-07-2015, 23:11
My biggest concern is you arent taking into account the fact that some units get better the more models they contain. For example, 30 goblins is like...10x better than 10 goblins, but only 3x the point cost.

Last Edition
07-07-2015, 23:23
I know and I share that concern, but those rules; units get better the more models they got, have to be play-tested how good that ability really is. Most people will shoot/magic a 30 strong goblin unit down so they don't get those bonuses anymore.. now the goblin player would have payed a lot of points for a potential... But fear not, this will be figured out eventually, just not prioritized right now ;)

Galushi
07-07-2015, 23:30
In this system, a Hammerer costs 13 points :P thats 6,5 (ish) hammerer per Irongut :)
What I meant with 'Too Good' is internal balance. Not everything can be balanced with a correct point per model, in my experience. Sometimes you run into units thats either too cheap or too expensive ;)


I think your hammerer cost might be a little low then. They are quite good.

And why not? Let's say, using your system, you come up with a points cost that results in a model being Very Good for its cost during testing. Why couldn't you kick up the cost at that model? The formula/system is there to get you in the ballpark, but if things are off I think one of the positives of using our own systems is we CAN fix internal balance. Nobody is stopping you from addressing those balance concerns.

Heck, I kinda wish I had done this with 8th, because there were definitely some internal balance issues. But since AoS has no points costs at all, I'm not really at odds with what the official rules are lol.

By the way, for a couple armies I skimmed and ran some of the same units through my own formula and we're pretty close in most cases.

Galushi
07-07-2015, 23:36
My biggest concern is you arent taking into account the fact that some units get better the more models they contain. For example, 30 goblins is like...10x better than 10 goblins, but only 3x the point cost.

Yeah, those horde rules are quite odd. The ones that get extra attacks when their unit is larger is quite good. I think the intention was to give them a bonus at large unit size since it might be hard to get them ALL into base contact. So it's essentially giving them supporting attacks by making the front line more effective.

It's also a weakness like Last Edition said, that if you know they get benefit for being 20+ or 30+, you can shoot them down a bit to take away that advantage.

Last Edition
07-07-2015, 23:59
By the way, for a couple armies I skimmed and ran some of the same units through my own formula and we're pretty close in most cases.

Lets hope that means we are on to something ;)

Katastrophe
08-07-2015, 00:43
Updated with High Elves, Orcs & Goblins and The Empire :)

Up to 9 armies now...getting there!

Link: http://docdro.id/15x0c

I suspect HE archers are miscosted at 32. Is it supposed to be 12.

Aranei90
08-07-2015, 01:14
Last Edition, I am impressed by your efforts. You are doing a great job here! I will be waiting for updates, despite me doubting that point system is enough to make Age of Sigmar a decent game. Anyway, your work will surely make it balanced, more or less.
However, I must point out that Zombie Dragon currently costs 450 points and Arachnarock 235, so two Arachnarocks cost 470. After checking their sats I could'n understand why the Zombie Dragon is equal 2 Arachnarocks. I've read and understood your point system, but this still looks wrong.

someone2040
08-07-2015, 02:05
Just had a quick skim over the new stuff. Will be interested to see how things play out now that a few of my armies have points costs. I have some games coming up on friday, might print off the sheets and see how we go. (or maybe retroactively compare what gets put down compared to points costs, we'll see).

One thing I might suggest. *Ocassionally* in the substitute warscrolls section, they've sometimes mentioned for Pegasus mounts to just use the Mounted version but give Fly. I wonder if it might be worthwhile making them a separate option in your lists as obviously Fly has to be worth something.
I know that was the suggest for the Empire one (and vaguely seem to remember it being a suggestion in another list, maybe Dark Elves?).

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 07:26
I suspect HE archers are miscosted at 32. Is it supposed to be 12.

You are correct, Sir. Fixed. Should be 13 Points.


Last Edition, I am impressed by your efforts. You are doing a great job here! I will be waiting for updates, despite me doubting that point system is enough to make Age of Sigmar a decent game. Anyway, your work will surely make it balanced, more or less.
However, I must point out that Zombie Dragon currently costs 450 points and Arachnarock 235, so two Arachnarocks cost 470. After checking their sats I could'n understand why the Zombie Dragon is equal 2 Arachnarocks. I've read and understood your point system, but this still looks wrong.
Yes, It seems I forgot to add in the Spider's multiple wounds. The spider is still not very expensive though, sitting at 275 points. I will go over every Monster one more time and see if I have done any errors.


Just had a quick skim over the new stuff. Will be interested to see how things play out now that a few of my armies have points costs. I have some games coming up on friday, might print off the sheets and see how we go. (or maybe retroactively compare what gets put down compared to points costs, we'll see).

One thing I might suggest. *Ocassionally* in the substitute warscrolls section, they've sometimes mentioned for Pegasus mounts to just use the Mounted version but give Fly. I wonder if it might be worthwhile making them a separate option in your lists as obviously Fly has to be worth something.
I know that was the suggest for the Empire one (and vaguely seem to remember it being a suggestion in another list, maybe Dark Elves?).
Could you tell me how it fared if you decide to use it (retroactively or not)?

I do give mounts separate listings. Problem with Empire and Dark Elves, they do not have option for Pegasus :( GW has only given us Warscrolls for model they sell.

Thanks for feedback folks, helps a lot. Dwarfs and Skaven is next.

LINK (updated to fix errors): http://docdro.id/15y6o

Here are three lists I have made. They contain models I have laying around gathering dust. They are getting both round bases and usage...I hope :)

BEASTMEN

HEROES:
Great Bray Shaman: 95
Wargor Standard Bearer: 80

MONSTERS:
Jabbaslythe: 225

UNITS:
10 Bestigors: 130
5 Centigors: 105
6 Harpies: 78
7 Harpies: 91
3 Minotaurs: 195

POINTS: 999

OGRES

HEROES:
Firebelly: 175

MONTSERS:
Giant: 290

UNITS:
3 Maneaters: 255
Scraplauncher: 195
10 Gnoblar Fighters: 20
10 Gnoblar Fighters: 20
1 Sabretusk: 17
1 Sabretusk: 17

POINTS: 989


DARK ELVES

HEROES:
Black Ark Fleetmaster: 65
Sorceress: 130
Master Standard Bearer: 60

MONSTER:
Kharibdyss: 230

WAR MACHINES
2 Reaper Bolt Throwers: 180

UNITS
10 Black Ark Cosairs: 110
10 Black Ark Cosairs: 110
5 Harpies: 65
3 Darkshards: 39

POINTS: 989

someone2040
08-07-2015, 07:38
Could you tell me how it fared if you decide to use it (retroactively or not)?

I do give mounts separate listings. Problem with Empire and Dark Elves, they do not have option for Pegasus :( GW has only given us Warscrolls for model they sell.
Of course, will see how it goes on Friday.
What I meant for the Pegasus models is. If you look in the "Substitute Warscrolls" section for both Empire and Dark Elves, they list what you should use as a substitute for General of the Empire on Pegasus and Dreadlord on Dark Pegasus. Under both of these options, they indicate to use the mounted version (Warhorse for General, Cold One for Dreadlord) but also give the ability for it to Fly.
In the case of the Sorceress on Pegasus they told you to use Morathi instead (as it's a closer match I guess).
Karl Franz can apparently ride a Pegasus in 8th as well, didn't know that.

In these cases, Flying is obviously better than just being mounted. So I guess my suggestion is that if there are any Substitute Warscrolls like this (use X with additional ability), they should probably be costed differently because Flying is obviously better.

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 07:47
Oh, I understood the substitute Warscroll business as: General of the Empire on Pegasus are no longer available, use rules for General of the Empire on Warhorse instead. That being said, I can figure out what a Empire General on Pegasus will cost and put the option in - no problem.

General of the Empire: 95 points
General of the Empire on Warhorse: 115 points
General of the Empire on Pegasus: 145 points

Skywave
08-07-2015, 07:51
Well, you are wrong that am trying to emulate the previous editions. I just came up with an way to calculate points, thats it.
If the units are undercosted compared to monsters, will off course come to light very soon :)

I can't stress this enough - I am not trying to find a perfect balance (thats a fail from the get-go with any formula to calculate points), I am just creating a framework to work on :)

Maybe not by design, but that's what I noticed with 500pts + for some models, and Nagash at over 1000pts :) Plus, you still have magic level at 35pts each like in 8th :p

I say that because in my test games, I noticed that big, solo models can be damaged quite easily and also killed by sufficient weaker attacks (more so than previously). Take this more as a feedback than a critic though, I haven't played a lot and maybe you had different experience with the game!

And a small typo I spotted in your document; In every page, in the "note" box, you wrote "combonations" in the last part.

Keep up the good work :)

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 08:19
Maybe not by design, but that's what I noticed with 500pts + for some models, and Nagash at over 1000pts :) Plus, you still have magic level at 35pts each like in 8th :p
Hehe I have taken set numbers from 8th, like wizard levels, thats true :) Yeah, Nagash's points were scary. I think I re-calculated his points 4 or 5 times because it came so close to his original points.


I say that because in my test games, I noticed that big, solo models can be damaged quite easily and also killed by sufficient weaker attacks (more so than previously). Take this more as a feedback than a critic though, I haven't played a lot and maybe you had different experience with the game!
Do not worry, critic and feedback is welcomed in any form. And yes, we might see monsters get less expensive over time if they prove to be over-prized. I'd be happy to adjust it because right now, Ogres cannot fit a Monster in a 1000 points list (25% Monsters)


And a small typo I spotted in your document; In every page, in the "note" box, you wrote "combonations" in the last part.

Keep up the good work :)

Thanks, Combonations will be fixed ;)

Feedback most appreciated.

TheRedDuke
08-07-2015, 09:04
I did calculate the Skaven values.. do you need them?

Aranei90
08-07-2015, 09:07
In every joke... (stolen from /tg/)

>"we were playing with wounds as points last
night and my buddy kept going on about how my 20 stormvermin were doing
so well and his 10 warriors of chaos were pretty lackluster. i found
myself saying, "it's cuz my guys are fifty bucks and yours are 35. then
it hit me:
>it's DOLLARS. no joke. i've
tried war scrolls, units, wounds, and even the old points from the last
codices. the only system that has made any sense so far is real life
money. take the price as advertised on GW's website and convert that
into "points" for your models.
>we
knocked around a few 200 dollar lists last night before we quit and they
seemed way more balanced than anything else we've tried."

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 09:12
@Redduke

yes please :D

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 09:14
In every joke... (stolen from /tg/)

>"we were playing with wounds as points last
night and my buddy kept going on about how my 20 stormvermin were doing
so well and his 10 warriors of chaos were pretty lackluster. i found
myself saying, "it's cuz my guys are fifty bucks and yours are 35. then
it hit me:
>it's DOLLARS. no joke. i've
tried war scrolls, units, wounds, and even the old points from the last
codices. the only system that has made any sense so far is real life
money. take the price as advertised on GW's website and convert that
into "points" for your models.
>we
knocked around a few 200 dollar lists last night before we quit and they
seemed way more balanced than anything else we've tried."

Haha Awesome :D

TheRedDuke
08-07-2015, 09:22
Well ok here you are.. I hope I didnt make any mistakes
Keep up the amazing work !

Thanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Projectors) 1072
Thanquol and boneripper (Warpfire Braziers) 1088
Grey Seer 224
Screaming Bell 595
Lord Skreech Verminking 690
Verminlord Warbringer 623
Verminlord Corruptor 787
Verminlord Deceiver 645
Verminlord Warpseer 915
Queek Headtaker 123
Warlord Spinetail 88
Tretch Craventail 69
Warlord (Warpforged Blade) 70
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades) 69
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade) 81
Warlord (Warpforged Blade+Clanshild) 74
Warlord (Pair of Barbed Blades+Clanshield) 72
Warlord (War Halberd + Barbed Blade+Clanshield) 84
Chieftain with Batle Standard 43
Clanrats (Rusty Spear) 6
Clanrats (Rusty Blade) 6
Clanrat-Clawleader (Kommando) 5
Clanrat-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Clanrat-Bell Chimbers (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin (no shield) 12
Stormvermin (shield) 13
Stormvermin-Fangleader (Kommando) 5
Stormvermin-Standard Bearer (Kommando) 10
Stormvermin-Pack Drummers (Kommando) 10
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears) 4
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade) 6
Skavenslaves (Rusty Spears+Scavenged Shield) 5
Skavenslaves (Rusty Blade+Scavenged Shield) 7
Skavenslaves (Slings) 5,5
Skavenslaves-Pawleader (Kommando) 3
Skavenslaves-Bell Chimers (Kommando) 10
Ikit Claw 508,5
Warlock Engineer 234,5
Doom-Flayer Weapon Team 45
Ratling Gun Weapon Team 40
Warpfire Thrower Weapon Team 20
Warp-Grinder Weapon Team 42
Poisoned Wind Mortar Weapon Team 70
Poisoned Wind Globadiers 16,5
Warplock Jezzails 48
Doomwheel 145
Warp Lightning Cannon 52,5
Stormfiends (Doomflayer) 90
Stormfiends (Shock Gauntlets) 81
Stormfiends (Grinderfists) 100
Stormfiends (Warpfire Projectors) 84
Stormfiends (Windlaunchers) 104
Stormfiends (Ratling Cannon) 105
Throt the Unclean 112
Packmaster Skweel Gnawtooth 80,5
Packmaster (Whipe and Blade) 24
Packmaster (Whipe and Things-catcher) 25
Packmaster (Shock-Prod) 39
Giant Rats 4
Rat Swarm 32,5
Rat Ogres (no Warpfire Gun) 42
Rat Ogres (Warpfire Gun) 66
Hell Pit Abomination (no Warpstone Spikes) 307,5
Hell Pit Abomination (Warpstonespikes) 315
Lord Skrolk 256
Plague Priest 206,5
Plague Furnace 602
Plague Monks (Pair of Foetid Blades) 9
Plague Monks (Foetid Blade+Woe-stave) 6
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Plague Scroll) 10
Plague Monks-Bringer of the Word (Book of Woes) 10
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Contagion Banners) 15
Plague Monks-Icon Bearer (Icon of Pestilence) 15
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Doom Goog) 10
Plague Monks-Plague Harbinger (Bale-chime) 10
Plague Censer Bearers 12
Plagueclaw Catapult 125
Deathmaster Snikch 105
Assassin (Weeping Blade) 63
Assassin (Fighting Claws) 57
Assassin (Weeping Blade+Throwing Stars) 80,5
Assassin (Fighting Claws+Throwing Stars) 72
Night Runners 12
Night Runners-Nightleader 5
Gutter Runners 17

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 09:25
@Redduke

Thanks bunches.. this helps a lot. I was just about to start on Skaven when I saw your post, now I can start on Daemons :)

TheRedDuke
08-07-2015, 09:32
I am very happy to help.. but I am not sure if I did everything 100% correctly.. I would recommend you checking it before writing it in your PDF

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 09:45
Will do. Saves me bunch of work even if I check it!

Taggra Foecarver
08-07-2015, 15:45
Thank you, please keep it up, this is the best effort I've seen and gives some hope that there can be balance in this version. Looking forward to seeing those Dwarfs.

TheRedDuke
08-07-2015, 16:43
The link isnt working anymore
Can you post it again pls?

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 19:44
@Taggre
Thank you.. I will keep it up, no worries :)

porthios
08-07-2015, 20:28
I am available and looking to help. Can you show me how you are calculating point values and I will try and get as many done for you as I can.?

Last Edition
08-07-2015, 20:46
Follow these steps to calculate. Link: http://docdro.id/15o39

But I will ask you to skip the last part where you multiply End cost by Wounds. Just add all bonus together and write down that number here and ill do the rest :)

Would highly appreciate if someone delved into Chaos Warriors and Wood Elves :)

ahva
08-07-2015, 23:53
Your skaven list is the orks and goblins list for some reason

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 06:23
Your skaven list is the orks and goblins list for some reason

Yeah, I know. Its just a copy/paste before it becomes Skaven :)

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 09:28
Update: Dwarfs and Skaven.

Thanks TheRedDuke for helping with Skaven! Even though our points didn't match on multi-wound models (in most cases), your points helped a lot to speed things up.

TheRedDuke
09-07-2015, 11:18
Well im glad to see that it helped you^^

porthios
09-07-2015, 12:25
I can tackle the Warriors of Chaos.

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 12:51
Well im glad to see that it helped you^^

:yes:


I can tackle the Warriors of Chaos.

Great! :)

Lizardmen are up

LuckStealer
09-07-2015, 13:18
I have readed your pdf, and i agree whit all of you: we need points value for units and your sistem is the best that i saw :)

Now i have an ideea in mind and maybe you can implement it in your pdf, i don't like that you can have 3 models of cavalry whit a leader that is better than the normal dude, a banner and a horn in a single unit. My ideea is simple, for every model that is special you need another model that is vanila, so if you want to take a company of cavalry for example whit all the special dudes you need to have at least 6 models, the leader, the banner, the horn one and another 3 vanila models. So guys, what do you think?

edit: i know that you hate sudden death, but maybe after we use a point sistem, and then we change units for wounds in the sudden death rule we can add another lair of strategy to the game, like having less units that are elite and go for a last stand against the enemy Horde(300 style) or fast units and go for the assasination

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 13:59
I have readed your pdf, and i agree whit all of you: we need points value for units and your sistem is the best that i saw :)

Now i have an ideea in mind and maybe you can implement it in your pdf, i don't like that you can have 3 models of cavalry whit a leader that is better than the normal dude, a banner and a horn in a single unit. My ideea is simple, for every model that is special you need another model that is vanila, so if you want to take a company of cavalry for example whit all the special dudes you need to have at least 6 models, the leader, the banner, the horn one and another 3 vanila models. So guys, what do you think?

edit: i know that you hate sudden death, but maybe after we use a point sistem, and then we change units for wounds in the sudden death rule we can add another lair of strategy to the game, like having less units that are elite and go for a last stand against the enemy Horde(300 style) or fast units and go for the assasination

Thanks, nice to hear :)

I like that idea. I will address such rules in my amended core rules, which will also be in this PDF, but that will not be done before all armies have point values :)

Sudden Death system is actually something I wouldn't mind in various scenarios. And your idea would be very cool in a certain scenario where Elites do a final stand against hordes of meat shields hehe.

Ix't
09-07-2015, 14:47
I've played numerous games as Lizardmen since release, and their point values (http://www.docdroid.net/1636j/armies-of-sigmar.pdf.html) are not reflective of their power on the board at all... especially in the case of Salamanders vs. Razordons, Saurus vs. TG, Terradons vs. Salamanders, Cold Ones vs. Terradons, Oldblood vs. Gor-rok, and the list goes on.

I've seen a number of point calculations, and I have my doubts. It doesn't seem to take the new flow of the game into account, doesn't value the right stuff, doesn't put an appropriate value to special rules.

If nothing else, it seems to be applying 8th's approach to not 9th, but a completely different game.

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 18:50
Daemons are done

porthios
09-07-2015, 19:35
Last Edition, Im trying to knock out Warriors, when there are multiple weapon choices, are you choosing the best of the stats or the best weapon overall (Score Wise).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c63tz69i3owdp9l/Points%20Calc.xlsx?dl=0

This is what I have so far, mind quick checking before I keep knocking it out.

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 20:09
Will check it out now.

If there is multiple choice, use the best one - they are usually only 1 or 2 points apart. If there is large differances, like on the Stormfiends, you need to splitt them apart and do separate points.

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 20:29
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c63tz69i3owdp9l/Points%20Calc.xlsx?dl=0

This is what I have so far, mind quick checking before I keep knocking it out.

Looks very good. Nice document :)

Two things:
1. Remember to add +35 points per spell they can cast every Hero phase.
2. (this is my fault because I have explained it wrong) When a model have Damage more than 1, add the whole Damage number to the models Wounds before multiplying with End Total. Example, if Archaon has Damage 3, add 3 to his Wounds = 8+3=11. Your end Total is 87 X Wounds 11 (x6.0) = 522 (520). Now Archaon was a bad example since not all his attacks has Damage 3, so on him I would just use Wounds 10 (damage 2+ 8 Wounds).

Keep it up :)

porthios
09-07-2015, 21:53
Working on it still, 35 Points per spell is getting steep! Galrauch and Vilitch are not balancing well with that, I may be tired...but Galrauch came out to be like 1000+ points


Still working at it though, hoping to get this down and continue using it when new models release.

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 21:58
No worries, I can double check those 1000 points beast...but would not surprise me if Galrauch reached 1k points :)

I'm done with Wood Elves.. just WoC left, and those not released yet

LINK: http://docdro.id/1646r

porthios
09-07-2015, 22:27
Ok I finished the Profile and Weapons on everything, not really clear on the abilities portion. Would love to keeps this alive and updating when new units come out. I plan on play testing as soon as we finish up the points. Hoping to have feedback soon.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/c63tz69i3owdp9l/Points%20Calc.xlsx?dl=0

Last Edition
09-07-2015, 22:37
Don't worry, I can deal with the abilites (done a couple now after 14 armies hehe). I will start on it tomorrow morning.

Edit: Great job and thanks again

porthios
09-07-2015, 23:52
Awesome! If there is anymore I can help with let me Know!

Or anything else....

porthios
10-07-2015, 00:41
Might be crazy....cant see the wood elves in the document

Last Edition
10-07-2015, 08:21
You are not crazy, I haven't uploaded the Wood Elves yet ;)

porthios
10-07-2015, 11:37
Well I am pretty excited to start play testing this. We have a AoS release event going on at my local store, will be fun to see how people feel about the points values.

fredster4050
10-07-2015, 15:44
Sounding controversial, why put points to this system if GW didn't? Is not the point of the game to move away from the structure of previous systems? Strikes me that the concept GW seem to be going for is less balanced games, not more, allows for much better scenario/story driven play?

porthios
10-07-2015, 16:02
Sounding controversial, why put points to this system if GW didn't? Is not the point of the game to move away from the structure of previous systems? Strikes me that the concept GW seem to be going for is less balanced games, not more, allows for much better scenario/story driven play?

My 2 cents is, they wrote a 4 page "rulebook" so it was in our hands. You may like and enjoy the less balanced games and you should play that way. I actually played a 3 hour game on Wed. rules as written and had a good time, i have also played few games rules as written and have not enjoyed them even as the "winner".

I am proud of the points system work being done and Last Edition's work has been amazing. I myself want to play balanced games where pick up games and semi even balanced armies are an option. I also see myself playing some of the "unbound" style or scenario games. The answer to your question in my opinion is , Why Not?...

GW has pretty much left anything other then the basics up to us, so we can all literally play however we want. I hope this point system thrives and we as a community continue to work on it. Sky is the limit really, GW has blatantly gotten out of the Rules business, so we can build the game balancing how we like.

At the end of the day why question efforts, just don't play with points....because you don't have to.

HelloKitty
10-07-2015, 17:00
My 2 cents is, they wrote a 4 page "rulebook" so it was in our hands. You may like and enjoy the less balanced games and you should play that way. I actually played a 3 hour game on Wed. rules as written and had a good time, i have also played few games rules as written and have not enjoyed them even as the "winner".

I am proud of the points system work being done and Last Edition's work has been amazing. I myself want to play balanced games where pick up games and semi even balanced armies are an option. I also see myself playing some of the "unbound" style or scenario games. The answer to your question in my opinion is , Why Not?...

GW has pretty much left anything other then the basics up to us, so we can all literally play however we want. I hope this point system thrives and we as a community continue to work on it. Sky is the limit really, GW has blatantly gotten out of the Rules business, so we can build the game balancing how we like.

At the end of the day why question efforts, just don't play with points....because you don't have to.

Yep I agree with all of this as why. They gave us a framework and told us to do whatever we want with it. So we are. If its not someone's cup of tea, that's also cool, but thats why we have the choice of who we play with and not play with.

TheKingInYellow
10-07-2015, 19:43
This looks great, my group is going to give these a shot.

Last Edition
10-07-2015, 21:48
Hey all and thanks for kind words.

The time is here! All the 8th edition armies have now a framework, which you all can work with when finding the "correct" points costs for Age of Sigmar :)

Big Thanks to TheRedDuke and Porthios with the help they did speeding this process up!

Here is the Link: http://docdro.id/WB6zOPr

Next is adding some errata to the 4 page rulebook... just a little bit :)

TheRedDuke
11-07-2015, 07:14
Thank you so much! If I can help you in any way tell me ..

HelloKitty
11-07-2015, 13:18
I beg you please don't nerf shooting its fine just the way it is...

If a model can both fight in melee and shoot into melee then missile models are worth around double melee-only models. Why would people ever take melee-only models? That would be silly when missile troops would typically have double the output?

HelloKitty
11-07-2015, 14:41
Archers being in combat faster does not negate the fact that if they can shoot into combat that they get both ranged dice and melee dice which makes them worth as many points as something with that many attacks.

If someone wants to shoot in combat i am not opposed but they better be paying for their combined number of attacks if the system lets them do that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
11-07-2015, 15:11
Also if shooting into combat is allowed points need to reflect range since melee only with a 1" range and 2 dice are at a clear disasvantage to a model with a 20" range and 2 dice


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last Edition
11-07-2015, 18:07
I have calculated points as, no shooting attacks can be done while the shooting unit is locked in combat.

Last Edition
11-07-2015, 21:22
I've played numerous games as Lizardmen since release, and their point values (http://www.docdroid.net/1636j/armies-of-sigmar.pdf.html) are not reflective of their power on the board at all... especially in the case of Salamanders vs. Razordons, Saurus vs. TG, Terradons vs. Salamanders, Cold Ones vs. Terradons, Oldblood vs. Gor-rok, and the list goes on.

I've seen a number of point calculations, and I have my doubts. It doesn't seem to take the new flow of the game into account, doesn't value the right stuff, doesn't put an appropriate value to special rules.

If nothing else, it seems to be applying 8th's approach to not 9th, but a completely different game.
Sorry, but I seem to have completely missed your post.
I have said this numerous times already, but I'll go again :) This is just a framework. It is not a magical system that will find the unit's correct point cost. It was made, so we as an community (isolated or not), play test and figure where we need to adjust points accordingly. If we hit with many units, then great. This is not GW's point system, we can alter them as we think they should be adjusted, as you have play tested with Lizardmen. :)

Your last sentence didn't understand...

Andaxius
12-07-2015, 01:50
Finally!

Great work, Last Edition. Couple of items.

1. Brets' musician, standard bearer, champion bubble is still just pasted from the Ogres.

2. Chaos Warriors at 22 points is too cheap. They have several weapon choices, but an obvious best choice. They can dual wield, which gives them 4 attacks. They lose their shield special, but pick up a much better one. When they dual wield they can reroll any ones rolled when attempting to hit. From memory of your methodology, I think they should come in at 28 points.

3. Speaking of your methodology...The link to your rationale behind the points is gone, can you repost it please?

4. One thing to account for is the fact that the Bravery score really doesn't matter for single model units. The Bravery of a Saurus Warrior is a huge advantage, but a single model unit with a Bravery of 10 is no different from one with a Bravery of 6. Maybe there are some vague rules that benefit a single model unit with high Bravery, but it certainly isn't a major benefit.

That's all I got at the moment, I'll be play testing with my boys and friends, I'll keep you posted (Lizardmen, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, and Dark Elves).

Last Edition
12-07-2015, 05:35
Finally!

Great work, Last Edition. Couple of items.

1. Brets' musician, standard bearer, champion bubble is still just pasted from the Ogres.

2. Chaos Warriors at 22 points is too cheap. They have several weapon choices, but an obvious best choice. They can dual wield, which gives them 4 attacks. They lose their shield special, but pick up a much better one. When they dual wield they can reroll any ones rolled when attempting to hit. From memory of your methodology, I think they should come in at 28 points.

3. Speaking of your methodology...The link to your rationale behind the points is gone, can you repost it please?

4. One thing to account for is the fact that the Bravery score really doesn't matter for single model units. The Bravery of a Saurus Warrior is a huge advantage, but a single model unit with a Bravery of 10 is no different from one with a Bravery of 6. Maybe there are some vague rules that benefit a single model unit with high Bravery, but it certainly isn't a major benefit.

That's all I got at the moment, I'll be play testing with my boys and friends, I'll keep you posted (Lizardmen, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, and Dark Elves).

Thanks, Andaxius :)

1. WOW...I must be getting old; can't remember how many times I tried to remember to corrects the Bret's command option. Thanks for noticing.
2. That depends how you read the rules. Either he just have two attacks and re-roll 1 when dual wielding or he gets 4 attacks with re-rolling 1s. I read it as 2 attacks. Can be changed if people play it with 4 attacks.
3. That will be fixed. First have to get through a 12 hour shift at work :\
4. useless aganist battleshock, but there are spells that you have very good resistance against with B10. But I will try and find a middle ground and adjust monsters accordingly.

Great to hear.. Thanks for feedback. Will be fixed as soon as im back from work :)

Last Edition
12-07-2015, 05:37
Finally!

Great work, Last Edition. Couple of items.

1. Brets' musician, standard bearer, champion bubble is still just pasted from the Ogres.

2. Chaos Warriors at 22 points is too cheap. They have several weapon choices, but an obvious best choice. They can dual wield, which gives them 4 attacks. They lose their shield special, but pick up a much better one. When they dual wield they can reroll any ones rolled when attempting to hit. From memory of your methodology, I think they should come in at 28 points.

3. Speaking of your methodology...The link to your rationale behind the points is gone, can you repost it please?

4. One thing to account for is the fact that the Bravery score really doesn't matter for single model units. The Bravery of a Saurus Warrior is a huge advantage, but a single model unit with a Bravery of 10 is no different from one with a Bravery of 6. Maybe there are some vague rules that benefit a single model unit with high Bravery, but it certainly isn't a major benefit.

That's all I got at the moment, I'll be play testing with my boys and friends, I'll keep you posted (Lizardmen, Chaos Warriors, Chaos Daemons, Vampire Counts, and Dark Elves).

Thanks, Andaxius :)

1. WOW...I must be getting old; can't remember how many times I tried to remember to corrects the Bret's command option. Thanks for noticing.
2. That depends how you read the rules. Either he just have two attacks and re-roll 1 when dual wielding or he gets 4 attacks with re-rolling 1s. I read it as 2 attacks. Can be changed if people play it with 4 attacks.
3. That will be fixed. First have to get through a 12 hour shift at work :\
4. useless aganist battleshock, but there are spells that you have very good resistance against with B10. But I will try and find a middle ground and adjust monsters accordingly.

Great to hear.. Thanks for feedback. Will be fixed as soon as im back from work :)

Andaxius
12-07-2015, 14:37
2. That depends how you read the rules. Either he just have two attacks and re-roll 1 when dual wielding or he gets 4 attacks with re-rolling 1s. I read it as 2 attacks. Can be changed if people play it with 4 attacks.
:)

According to the simplest interpretation of the rules, it should be seen as 4 attacks, but I agree with you. The best interpretation should be 2 attacks. The benefit would then be in line with all the other weapon options. I still struggle a bit with Chaos Warriors being only 3 points more expensive than Saurus Temple Guard, when they have similar stats across the board, but Chaos Warriors have double the wounds.

Knoffles
12-07-2015, 15:55
Also wanted to add in a huge thanks to you for the time taken to do this. Not having balance or numerical parts to the warscrolls was sending this accountant round the bend...

Andaxius
13-07-2015, 02:22
Found another issue with the Warriors of Chaos list.

Chaos Lord - 195
Chaos Lord on Daemonic Mount - 215
Chaos Lord of Nurgle - 155
Chaos Lord of Nurgle on Daemonic Mount - 275

The Chaos Lord is actually not quite as good as a Nurgle Lord since the Nurgle Lord has 1 more wound. I'm guessing the points for Nurgle Lord should be 255.

Andaxius
13-07-2015, 02:38
Now that I'm going through the Chaos list with a bit of a fine tooth comb, I'm realizing that there are more issues. Their is no listing for a basic Slaanesh Chaos Lord and Slaanesh Lord on a Daemonic Mount.

There is no listing for Chaos Lord of Khorne, Chaos Lord of Khorne on Daemonic Mount, Chaos Lord of Tzeentch on Daemonic Mount, or Crom the Conqueror

It probably wouldn't hurt to tackle the Chaos list from scratch.

Last Edition
13-07-2015, 05:03
Found another issue with the Warriors of Chaos list.

Chaos Lord - 195
Chaos Lord on Daemonic Mount - 215
Chaos Lord of Nurgle - 155
Chaos Lord of Nurgle on Daemonic Mount - 275

The Chaos Lord is actually not quite as good as a Nurgle Lord since the Nurgle Lord has 1 more wound. I'm guessing the points for Nurgle Lord should be 255.
That is an issue I have already pondered over when I calculated the points. The issue is, the basic Chaos Lord is so expensive because of his summoning ability.


Now that I'm going through the Chaos list with a bit of a fine tooth comb, I'm realizing that there are more issues. Their is no listing for a basic Slaanesh Chaos Lord and Slaanesh Lord on a Daemonic Mount.

There is no listing for Chaos Lord of Khorne, Chaos Lord of Khorne on Daemonic Mount, Chaos Lord of Tzeentch on Daemonic Mount, or Crom the Conqueror

It probably wouldn't hurt to tackle the Chaos list from scratch.
I'm starting to see the confusion. All those are basic Chaos lord with or without daemonic mount, his mark are already in cost. So use a basic chaos lord and apply a mark. I will make a note of that along with command groups being free of cost. Crom however, I have forgotten. Thanks for spotting it.
Then again, there are listing for Chaos Lord of Slaanesh, Chaos Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount ;)


Also wanted to add in a huge thanks to you for the time taken to do this. Not having balance or numerical parts to the warscrolls was sending this accountant round the bend...
Hehe no problem, happy to help :)


According to the simplest interpretation of the rules, it should be seen as 4 attacks, but I agree with you. The best interpretation should be 2 attacks. The benefit would then be in line with all the other weapon options. I still struggle a bit with Chaos Warriors being only 3 points more expensive than Saurus Temple Guard, when they have similar stats across the board, but Chaos Warriors have double the wounds.
Saurus Temple guards have better save (ignore rend -2), better chance of scoring a wounds, 1 more attack and basically immune to battleshock and spells vs bravery - they are rock hard unit, imo.

Last Edition
13-07-2015, 10:48
Here is the last edition of the document - Age of Sigmar Player's Handbook. Includes army composition, point cost for every 8th edition army, and lastly an amended Age of Sigmar rules section.

Point costs are expected to change over time due to play testing.

Link: http://docdro.id/20f5WZr


Someone ask for the PDF with the Point system I used -
Here is the Link: http://docdro.id/15o39

Alti Elfi
13-07-2015, 11:20
First of all I want to thank you for this awesome work, it will be exciting to playtest this and I hope the community will give good and constuctive feedback on your work.
I have not yet had the chance to try it out, but at first sight I think that the look out sir rule needs some work, it should not work for HERO models who are either WAR MACHINE or MONSTER.
Keep up the good work. :)

Last Edition
13-07-2015, 11:31
First of all I want to thank you for this awesome work, it will be exciting to playtest this and I hope the community will give good and constuctive feedback on your work.
I have not yet had the chance to try it out, but at first sight I think that the look out sir rule needs some work, it should not work for HERO models who are either WAR MACHINE or MONSTER.
Keep up the good work. :)

Thank you, much appreciated.

I do not disagree concerning the Look-out, Sir! rule. I just figured, ill try it out as-is and then adjust it if its too powerful :) I was thinking while creating it that Monsters only could look-out on a roll of 6+ instead 4+.

Andaxius
13-07-2015, 17:32
I see that there are technically 2 Nurgle Chaos Lords and Slaanesh Chaos Lord possibilities. One is just selecting the appropriate Mark off the "Chaos Lord" Warscroll. The other is the appropriately named Chaos Warscroll. Can you tell me what the additional points on the Chaos Lord Warscroll would be if someone were to select the 4 possible Marks?

Also, could you explain the Warscroll Percentage from your army rules. I'm really not following you on that. I don't really understand why it says "1%". Should it say "100%"?

Last Edition
13-07-2015, 19:39
I see that there are technically 2 Nurgle Chaos Lords and Slaanesh Chaos Lord possibilities. One is just selecting the appropriate Mark off the "Chaos Lord" Warscroll. The other is the appropriately named Chaos Warscroll. Can you tell me what the additional points on the Chaos Lord Warscroll would be if someone were to select the 4 possible Marks?

Also, could you explain the Warscroll Percentage from your army rules. I'm really not following you on that. I don't really understand why it says "1%". Should it say "100%"?

1. No additional cost. I calculated all 4 marks are equally strong (6 points difference) I think I remembered to explain that in the Warriors of Chaos pages :)
2. yes, I can. the 1% Warscrolls is based on total points you decide to play with. This means, if you play a 1000 point battle, you can bring 10 Warscrolls.
All those percentages is based off point size of battle.

Taggra Foecarver
14-07-2015, 00:06
Thank you VERY much, Last Edition.

Andaxius
14-07-2015, 02:20
1. No additional cost. I calculated all 4 marks are equally strong (6 points difference) I think I remembered to explain that in the Warriors of Chaos pages :)
2. yes, I can. the 1% Warscrolls is based on total points you decide to play with. This means, if you play a 1000 point battle, you can bring 10 Warscrolls.
All those percentages is based off point size of battle.

OK! Now I get it. Jeez...you'd think I'd catch on sooner. The Warscroll thing makes perfect sense now. These are great rules, next comes the fun of trying everything out.

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 02:55
After playing AoS I really like the tweaks to the rules in addition to the points. I look forward to playtesting these.

I really like how you handled shooting into combat, it makes it viable, but risky (except for my skaven we care little for life)

Did you take any of the points info ideas from arkh at all?

I'm thinking this may need a feedback thread soon for battle reps etc.. so that this doesnt get too cluttered.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 05:53
Thank you VERY much, Last Edition.
Happy to help :) Egotistically made it for my own gaming group, happy to see others getting use of it.


OK! Now I get it. Jeez...you'd think I'd catch on sooner. The Warscroll thing makes perfect sense now. These are great rules, next comes the fun of trying everything out.
:)


After playing AoS I really like the tweaks to the rules in addition to the points. I look forward to playtesting these.

I really like how you handled shooting into combat, it makes it viable, but risky (except for my skaven we care little for life)

Did you take any of the points info ideas from arkh at all?

I'm thinking this may need a feedback thread soon for battle reps etc.. so that this doesnt get too cluttered.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk
Glad you like the tweeks. Hopefully the shooing into combat rules can create some funny moments during the battle :) But I have to ask, what is arkh? Tried to google it but no luck :P
Feedback tread is a good idea.. can start one after my game this week and post my initial thought

Chaosknight
14-07-2015, 10:37
@OP, Hi there, interesting stuff and quick work too, well done! Is there any chance you could write up some basic battle reports using your system? Im curious to see how the balance feels to you, particularly with regard to characters. My own experience so far (over about 4 or 5 games) is that they are rather easily countered by pretty much any unit of troops now they don't have high WS, T, armour and wards to protect them, though certain OP abilities make them potentially worth their weight in gold (looking at you chaos lord) At the moment my friend and I are just using wounds as points but I have my misgivings about it, I must say 14 pts for a vampire lord on zombie dragon and 2pts for a chaos warrior seems a tad out of whack. IIRC your system has warriors at 22pts and said vampire on dragon at 680 (7 warriors vs 31 warriors as equivalent to 1 lord on dragon), so either you or we have got it profoundly wrong or the right balance is somewhere in between. So I just wondered what are your thoughts on that?

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 11:21
@OP, Hi there, interesting stuff and quick work too, well done! Is there any chance you could write up some basic battle reports using your system? Im curious to see how the balance feels to you, particularly with regard to characters. My own experience so far (over about 4 or 5 games) is that they are rather easily countered by pretty much any unit of troops now they don't have high WS, T, armour and wards to protect them, though certain OP abilities make them potentially worth their weight in gold (looking at you chaos lord) At the moment my friend and I are just using wounds as points but I have my misgivings about it, I must say 14 pts for a vampire lord on zombie dragon and 2pts for a chaos warrior seems a tad out of whack. IIRC your system has warriors at 22pts and said vampire on dragon at 680 (7 warriors vs 31 warriors as equivalent to 1 lord on dragon), so either you or we have got it profoundly wrong or the right balance is somewhere in between. So I just wondered what are your thoughts on that?
Thanks :)

I don't know if I have time to write battle reports, I have much to write still concerning Age of Sigmar: my Norse Army needs Warscrolls, various scenarios to keep the game play interesting (might be able to skip this with the new AoS book coming out). I can however, try to find some time to write a quick summery how the points and rules worked in my battles.

Concerning the Warriors vs Vampire on Zombie Dragon: Well, who will win in a isolated close combat of the two, is hard to say, and rather pointless in an argument of balance. I know the Vampire Lord can win, witnessed it, but that depended on him getting out Arcane Shield, stacking his save to 2+. But I hope, over several combats, 31 chaos warriors will wither him down eventually, due to them having their points calculated solely on their combat ability, while the Vampire Lord has value elsewhere in addition to his martial prowess; magic, command ability, chalice of blood, etc. While my theory-hammer is basically pointless, the point values will get adjusted if one of the two different unit types (heroes vs units) reveal themselves to be under- or over-valued. Hope that gave you some insight of my thoughts on the matter :)

Taggra Foecarver
14-07-2015, 15:41
One though on the Warscroll comp - I've also tinkered with this and found as an alternative that 10% of total Model Count = # of Warscrolls works pretty well to encourage taking larger units vs. heros/monsters. It's a bit circular, but it seems to work reasonably well. 1% of points _so far_ seems generous enough to me that it does not limit much, but I may be missing a corner case.

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 16:14
Arkh was a user who was using a similar method for points, his thread should be in here as well. Your results are similar.

Balance will be difficult to perfect, but this is looking really good. So long as the math hammer balances in 1v1 situations (mostly) then thats fine. Some units may be OP in some situations, where others may weak in others, but on the whole it looks even.


Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Last Edition
14-07-2015, 17:21
One though on the Warscroll comp - I've also tinkered with this and found as an alternative that 10% of total Model Count = # of Warscrolls works pretty well to encourage taking larger units vs. heros/monsters. It's a bit circular, but it seems to work reasonably well. 1% of points _so far_ seems generous enough to me that it does not limit much, but I may be missing a corner case.
Hehe I have gotten some responses on the Warscroll cap. Some are afraid it will hinder big units, others are afraid it will encourage big units... What am I do? :D Anyway, a system based on model count when you don't know your model count before creating your army, seems like it can become an annoyance. I do agree that its generous, but its really just there to hinder 1 man unit spam.


Arkh was a user who was using a similar method for points, his thread should be in here as well. Your results are similar.

Balance will be difficult to perfect, but this is looking really good. So long as the math hammer balances in 1v1 situations (mostly) then thats fine. Some units may be OP in some situations, where others may weak in others, but on the whole it looks even.


Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Ah I see. No I didn't use Arkh's method. It seems good though, hope we both are on to something. I also think Hellokitty's system seems really good.
Perfect balance? hehe that will prolly only be a dream, but can try though :) I only created this for my gaming group - we wanted to field two somewhat equally sized armies and have a laugh :)

HelloKitty
14-07-2015, 18:30
I wouldn't chase after perfect balance either. Thats pretty much impossible. Keep doing what you're doing!

Kisanis
14-07-2015, 19:09
Of course, it was hyberbole ;)

I meant that it should kept being tweaked for now, but on the whole it should be ok.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

porthios
16-07-2015, 14:27
@ Last Edition

Any plans on points for the new Starter Set Models?

HelloKitty
16-07-2015, 14:31
We've all got our work cut out for us this weekend. The book dropping has the scrolls for all of the new stuff (all of it, not just the starter box models)

Last Edition
16-07-2015, 19:53
@ Last Edition

Any plans on points for the new Starter Set Models?

Yes I do. Although, unlike Hellokitty (yes, I jealous! hehe), I probably won't get my pre-orderd book this weekend, but as soon as I get the rules, they will be uploaded :)

Last Edition
18-07-2015, 08:52
Updated with Point adjustment based on feedback; Ogres, Lizardmen and Orcs and Goblins.

Link: http://docdro.id/20f5WZr

Asmodai48
18-07-2015, 09:15
Hey thanks for the work. Will try give these a go this weekend.

Taggra Foecarver
19-07-2015, 18:23
Thanks. Have you given any thought to giving the "battalions" a point cost as well?

Last Edition
19-07-2015, 20:12
Hey thanks for the work. Will try give these a go this weekend.
Happy to be of assistance. Hope the pdf works for you.


Thanks. Have you given any thought to giving the "battalions" a point cost as well?
Happy to help.
Battalions are like formations in warhammer 40k, and in 40k they are free. I have not considered (yet) giving them any point cost other than cost of models. I honestly haven't given it any thought so I can't give you an answer at this point, sorry :)

Kisanis
20-07-2015, 01:47
The battalion thing is supposed to be a tactical trade off; you gain a preset combo, but kinda loose flexibilty. Its also not perfect in 40k, so they would require their own playtesting after the fact likely.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Tidings
20-07-2015, 09:45
This is amazing. I'll begin play testing asap, wood elves vs vampire counts. Thank you so much for all the work out into this! The more people we can get play testing it, the better it will be.

On on shooting into combat, my friends and I were doing something similar. Instead of half the wounds go to allies, we determined it on the hit roll. Any roll that would be a miss instead hits an ally. Then you proceed to roll wounds and saves for enemies and then for allies. It was simple and makes a certain amount of sense. Elite archers are better at taking riskier shots. But this is probably less balanced.

-Tidings

Fold
20-07-2015, 14:14
All this work is awesome and it makes me wonder if there would be value in a website that tracks the communities recommended point values for units, harnessing a vast number of games to hone the points value automatically over time. I see it working like this:

1. An initial points value is input for each unit (e.g. taken from Last Editions PDF).

2. Users can vote to increase, decrease or "hold" a units points value. Ideally they would do this after playtesting but there is obviously no way to verify this so the site would rely to some extent on people being sensible (though logic described later will go a long way to eliminating the impact of rogue users).

3. Increases and decreases would apply in 10% increments e.g. a vote to decrease a 200pt unit would be a vote to drop it to 180pts.

4. After a set period, the system would recalculate points for all units in the system based on the votes.

5. At first the period would be weekly while points are undergoing a lot of flux. Then it might drop to monthly.

6. The recalculation logic would favour the majority opinion and in the case of no clear winner would favour holding the points cost at current value. It would also have logic requiring a statistically significant number of votes relative to the total number of votes cast over time to make any points cost changes. So 20 votes on a brand new unit would likely change the points value at the next update; 20 votes on a unit that has reached it's current points value via 500 prior votes would likely not have any impact.

7. The site would record a history of the units points cost as well as the number and nature of user votes that led to each change.

Would you use such a site for points in your games?

Would you contribute playtest results to evolve the unit points?

Last Edition
20-07-2015, 17:38
This is amazing. I'll begin play testing asap, wood elves vs vampire counts. Thank you so much for all the work out into this! The more people we can get play testing it, the better it will be.

On on shooting into combat, my friends and I were doing something similar. Instead of half the wounds go to allies, we determined it on the hit roll. Any roll that would be a miss instead hits an ally. Then you proceed to roll wounds and saves for enemies and then for allies. It was simple and makes a certain amount of sense. Elite archers are better at taking riskier shots. But this is probably less balanced.

-Tidings
Thanks for kind words :)
I did consider tackling shooting into combat the way you guys do it, but did it the easy and fast way, and wanted the same deal for all armies across the board. I don't know which solution is the best though :)


All this work is awesome and it makes me wonder if there would be value in a website that tracks the communities recommended point values for units, harnessing a vast number of games to hone the points value automatically over time. I see it working like this:

1. An initial points value is input for each unit (e.g. taken from Last Editions PDF).

2. Users can vote to increase, decrease or "hold" a units points value. Ideally they would do this after playtesting but there is obviously no way to verify this so the site would rely to some extent on people being sensible (though logic described later will go a long way to eliminating the impact of rogue users).

3. Increases and decreases would apply in 10% increments e.g. a vote to decrease a 200pt unit would be a vote to drop it to 180pts.

4. After a set period, the system would recalculate points for all units in the system based on the votes.

5. At first the period would be weekly while points are undergoing a lot of flux. Then it might drop to monthly.

6. The recalculation logic would favour the majority opinion and in the case of no clear winner would favour holding the points cost at current value. It would also have logic requiring a statistically significant number of votes relative to the total number of votes cast over time to make any points cost changes. So 20 votes on a brand new unit would likely change the points value at the next update; 20 votes on a unit that has reached it's current points value via 500 prior votes would likely not have any impact.

7. The site would record a history of the units points cost as well as the number and nature of user votes that led to each change.

Would you use such a site for points in your games?

Would you contribute playtest results to evolve the unit points?
THIS! If the online AoS community could get behind a project like this, I would be thrilled - no matter what points system being used. I can't do web pages, so I wont be able to undertake this, but I think it would be the best solution to a balanced AoS :)

Great idea!

HelloKitty
20-07-2015, 17:46
It would be great, the problem is finding a consensus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Last Edition
20-07-2015, 17:50
That is always the problem, isn't it? Would it be a possible if a website contained more than one system? We already had several comp system in 8th edition, why not in AoS?

Kisanis
20-07-2015, 18:24
Well we would just need a website that was a collection of pdf's for different versions of AoS and the 'mods' we make as a community.

Could github or somesuch be used for this?



Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

HelloKitty
20-07-2015, 18:48
That could be useful yes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tidings
20-07-2015, 19:36
Love this idea of the website to vote. Only problem will be people voting on units they like using. I always want Waywatchers to be cheaper. :P
It would probably make the most sense for the votes to be reviewed before it's updated.

LastEdition, I wasn't suggesting the shooting method my friends and I were doing as something for everyone to do. Was just commenting is all. I think the most fair approach is no shooting into combat, which also gives archer-heavy armies more reason to retreat from combat.

-Tidings

DeathGlam
20-07-2015, 20:44
Just discovered this thread, fantastic work, i am looking to get my first real game of AoS this Wednesday, using my Greenskins vs Beastmen, this will help a lot.

Fold
20-07-2015, 22:07
It would be great, the problem is finding a consensus.

That would be the point of the system - to find a consensus. Something it could do very quickly , I believe. If you mean finding a consensus for the initial values, yes that is a small issue. I would propose to start with the most popular (on Warseer, based on replies, this thread appears to contain the most popular starting values for a detailed points based system, which is why I picked it to propose the site) or an average of the several most popular from various locations.


That is always the problem, isn't it? Would it be a possible if a website contained more than one system? We already had several comp system in 8th edition, why not in AoS?

Possible yes, but much more complex to build and by having multiple points systems the biggest issue is you dilute the validity of all the systems, because each will receive far less data from playtesters. Plus, obviously, you'd never reach a point where a large majority of AOS players were using the same points values.

With the system designed to reach a consensus, why would multiple points systems be required at all? Excepting circumstances like HelloKitty's 1-5 tier system which is obviously very different and perhaps not suitable for this type of massed data collection and analysis exercise.


Love this idea of the website to vote. Only problem will be people voting on units they like using. I always want Waywatchers to be cheaper. :P

It would probably make the most sense for the votes to be reviewed before it's updated.


Ha! Well, for your first point I offer two fairly easy solutions that would be built into the points adjustment logic, described earlier. The first is the fact that one users votes are never likely to have much impact alone - you'd need a critical mass of greedy Wood Elf players :) and/or genuinely concerned playtesters to shift the cost of the Waywatchers down. The second is the fact that the adjustment would be limited to 10% increments (say), meaning an organised "campaign" to drive down a units cost would have to be sustained over a long time to make a really damaging difference.

On top of that you also have the fact that after each update, new points values would be circulated to all users with the changes flagged. No doubt this would then be discussed on various forums and I think that if an odd, self interested point deduction were to make it through it would be spotted quite quickly and subsequently reversed by the community.

All this doesn't entirely prevent potential abuse obviously, but I'd hope the AOS community is, by on large, sensible enough to self police itself with just a few barriers to abuse.

There is another possibility that I imagined as well, which is that the system could build a trust score of individual users based on how often their votes matched the general consensus of votes. As such, arbitrarily voting to make Waywatchers cheaper could carry a risk to you as a user that the system will lose trust in your future votes, if it turns out that the majority of users voted to keep Waywatchers the same or increase their suggested points value.

To your second point I have to disagree. Implementing any kind of human review presupposes that one persons (or a committee of people's) view is inherently better than the crowd sourced data, something I struggle to imagine could ever be true given the discrepancy in possible playtesting between a small group and the hundreds or even thousands of contributors I can imagine using the site?

It also is likely to compromise the validity of the points system in many people's eyes ("who are the committee... Why do they get to have veto?") and adds an even greater barrier to getting such a site off the ground, namely picking the individuals who will have that power!

HelloKitty
20-07-2015, 22:21
Yeah the azyr system isnt really designed for people wanting precision. Were adding half points but thats still nowhere near precision values (though the formula used will be output as a precision comp formula later in a few weeks) and many require precision so azyr probably wont go beyond small events and campaigns which is its goal.

Your political reasons laid out (who is this committee and who made them the power) is really the sticking point. If community consensus is desired youd need the grand tournament community to embrace it. If it goes that far id say the project was a success.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kisanis
21-07-2015, 01:50
I think the only way to reach consensus is organically.

The flaw in the thinking is that there will be a universal mod to AoS.
People will lean towards their preferences.

Some will like azyr, others will like last edition.

All that can be done is as a community is offer to help playtest and tweak.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Asmodai48
21-07-2015, 05:05
Happy to be of assistance. Hope the pdf works for you.

Had a couple of games with your system i liked it overall. Friend thought war hydra for dark elves was a little under costed for how tough it was. Otherwise no complaints from our group.

Fold
21-07-2015, 10:10
I think the only way to reach consensus is organically.

The flaw in the thinking is that there will be a universal mod to AoS.
People will lean towards their preferences.

Some will like azyr, others will like last edition.

All that can be done is as a community is offer to help playtest and tweak.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

What do you mean "organically", and assuming that's different to what I've proposed why would it reach a concensus when a crowd sourced playtested set of points could not?

Of course there will not be a universal mod, as mentioned above I recognise that the Azyr system is not one whose goals match the goal of the website I propose. That's fine.

But beyond that sort of abstracted, loosely balanced tier system, what I see people attempting a lot is a formula driven system to arrive at some initial values, followed by playtested adjustments to those values.

Regardless of the initial formula, it seems to me that is to most intents and purposes a single system and therefore there must be potential in pooling playtesting resource to arrive at 1) far more accurate playtested points values than any one group could hope to achieve alone and 2) something closer to a consensus among AOS players who want to use a detailed points based system (as opposed to a loose tier system) as to what points values to use.

vash1313
21-07-2015, 15:03
Had a couple of games with your system i liked it overall. Friend thought war hydra for dark elves was a little under costed for how tough it was. Otherwise no complaints from our group.

I'm curious what particular aspect of the war hydra your friend thought made it undercosted? Wounds? Attacks? I ask because if we can figure out exactly what makes a unit over or undercosted, and if we observe the same trend in other units, that would seem to indicate that the formula itself needs to be tweaked because it needs to assign more or less weight to a particular trait across the board.

I should also add that I have reviewed a lot of point systems for this game, and this is one of the best and most comprehensive ones that I have found. Very well done. At this point it is hard to tell how balanced it is, but the calculations seem solid and I think only slight adjustments will need to be made. I would really like to see this formula get more widely distributed so we can get more feedback.

On a side note, I actually think it was good that GW did not supply point values for units. I have played their games since the late 90's, and I can't think of a time when the community has felt that the units were priced appropriately. How often has the entire community been in agreement that a certain unit was over/undercosted, yet we just accepted it and waited for the next army book? By choosing not to include "official" point values, GW has removed one of the biggest obstacles that prevented the community from addressing these issues. In many ways this reminds me of the open play test that Privateer Press conducted before they released Mark II. Now all that is needed is some sort of consensus in the community that narrows the choices down to a handful of different point systems. This sort of thing happens all the time with the games that GW no longer supports. I know that Battlefleet Gothic and Blood Bowl both have thriving living rule systems that are continuously updated. Why couldn't we do the same thing here? Would it be worth distributing this point system to a few of the large tournament organizers so that it can be disseminated to their participants for review?

Kisanis
21-07-2015, 15:48
What do you mean "organically", and assuming that's different to what I've proposed why would it reach a concensus when a crowd sourced playtested set of points could not?

Of course there will not be a universal mod, as mentioned above I recognise that the Azyr system is not one whose goals match the goal of the website I propose. That's fine.

But beyond that sort of abstracted, loosely balanced tier system, what I see people attempting a lot is a formula driven system to arrive at some initial values, followed by playtested adjustments to those values.

Regardless of the initial formula, it seems to me that is to most intents and purposes a single system and therefore there must be potential in pooling playtesting resource to arrive at 1) far more accurate playtested points values than any one group could hope to achieve alone and 2) something closer to a consensus among AOS players who want to use a detailed points based system (as opposed to a loose tier system) as to what points values to use.
I think we mean the same thing as far as growing and developing the mod.

Im just poor at choosing my wording.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Tidings
21-07-2015, 17:56
You know what Fold, you're totally right. Not sure why I was thinking one person would be able to drive down the price of waywatchers. I'll have to organize a group! To the Asrai forums! :P
Kidding aside I agree, the system already protects itself from that.

Oh I didn't mean people reviewing it with the authority to actually change points. I just meant instead of the changes being automated, someone just double checks it and hits approve, just in case there are any random errors/bugs. It would save a day of 30 people commenting THIS IS WRONG NO NIGHTGOBLIN IS WORTH 27,000 POINTS.

Like you said though, people in mass looking at it will quickly weed out errors.

-Tidings

Shogunate
21-07-2015, 19:45
I just spent the last week working out what I thought was the perfect formula, and then I find this; the points costs are almost identical across the board to the ones I've derived. As depressed as I am that I wasted all that time for nothing, I appreciate the work you've done, thanks.

Kisanis
22-07-2015, 00:01
Its not for nothing! Share! Highlight differences and your reasoning behind them!

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

porthios
22-07-2015, 01:07
So awesome to see the point system taking off! I will hopefully be play testing tomorrow. Played some games last Wednesday based on wounds with restrictions and ....boy was that a train wreck. Really looking forward to the point system, it has been really hard to convince my local club to use them. Not sure why but they are very hooked on the idea of bring what want. The summoning army players have been the most hesitant. I will let everyone know what I have found.

DeathGlam
22-07-2015, 10:19
I have had similar issues with suggesting this to my gaming club, other then one player they were all rather negative about it, although i now think it may have been mainly the percentages system on the first page that they did not like.

Anyway myself and the player who is interested will be playing tonight using this, as i like the rule updates and the points system meant i knocked us both up a list a lot quicker then if i had spent an hour or so trying to just wing it.

Last Edition
22-07-2015, 11:45
Sorry for my absent, busy days :)


LastEdition, I wasn't suggesting the shooting method my friends and I were doing as something for everyone to do. Was just commenting is all. I think the most fair approach is no shooting into combat, which also gives archer-heavy armies more reason to retreat from combat.

-Tidings
No worries, I understood you perfectly :) I have to mention that this PDF is not a "use all or nothing" deal. The points can be used in isolation without the composition rules and amended rules. Do and use this pdf in anyway you want. :)


Just discovered this thread, fantastic work, i am looking to get my first real game of AoS this Wednesday, using my Greenskins vs Beastmen, this will help a lot.
Much appreciated :) Hope you have a fair and fun game.


Had a couple of games with your system i liked it overall. Friend thought war hydra for dark elves was a little under costed for how tough it was. Otherwise no complaints from our group.
Good to hear. I have had some feedback concerning some Monsters, so I did a re-calculation of all monsters. Download and check if Hydra was one of those I had done a error with, I don't remember myself, but there was a couple of mistakes.


I'm curious what particular aspect of the war hydra your friend thought made it undercosted? Wounds? Attacks? I ask because if we can figure out exactly what makes a unit over or undercosted, and if we observe the same trend in other units, that would seem to indicate that the formula itself needs to be tweaked because it needs to assign more or less weight to a particular trait across the board.

I should also add that I have reviewed a lot of point systems for this game, and this is one of the best and most comprehensive ones that I have found. Very well done. At this point it is hard to tell how balanced it is, but the calculations seem solid and I think only slight adjustments will need to be made. I would really like to see this formula get more widely distributed so we can get more feedback.

On a side note, I actually think it was good that GW did not supply point values for units. I have played their games since the late 90's, and I can't think of a time when the community has felt that the units were priced appropriately. How often has the entire community been in agreement that a certain unit was over/undercosted, yet we just accepted it and waited for the next army book? By choosing not to include "official" point values, GW has removed one of the biggest obstacles that prevented the community from addressing these issues. In many ways this reminds me of the open play test that Privateer Press conducted before they released Mark II. Now all that is needed is some sort of consensus in the community that narrows the choices down to a handful of different point systems. This sort of thing happens all the time with the games that GW no longer supports. I know that Battlefleet Gothic and Blood Bowl both have thriving living rule systems that are continuously updated. Why couldn't we do the same thing here? Would it be worth distributing this point system to a few of the large tournament organizers so that it can be disseminated to their participants for review?
Thanks for kind words.
I have the same opinion concerning official points and it can become something much better if the community can agree to a consensus. I do think a website is the first step towards a accepted point system; looking forward seeing that happen, IF it happens. I'm hopeful :)


I just spent the last week working out what I thought was the perfect formula, and then I find this; the points costs are almost identical across the board to the ones I've derived. As depressed as I am that I wasted all that time for nothing, I appreciate the work you've done, thanks.
No problem, happy to help; although sorry you feel you wasted your time. If you feel I have done an error somewhere compared to your points, let me know :)


So awesome to see the point system taking off! I will hopefully be play testing tomorrow. Played some games last Wednesday based on wounds with restrictions and ....boy was that a train wreck. Really looking forward to the point system, it has been really hard to convince my local club to use them. Not sure why but they are very hooked on the idea of bring what want. The summoning army players have been the most hesitant. I will let everyone know what I have found.


I have had similar issues with suggesting this to my gaming club, other then one player they were all rather negative about it, although i now think it may have been mainly the percentages system on the first page that they did not like.

Anyway myself and the player who is interested will be playing tonight using this, as i like the rule updates and the points system meant i knocked us both up a list a lot quicker then if i had spent an hour or so trying to just wing it.
I would suggest not to push ANY point system on your group at the start. Play the game as GW intended couple of times, and after some games, I think your group will come the conclusion that they need some kind of comp/point system. Then go over the systems available to you and decide between yourselves :)

Hehe yeah, trying to create a balanced game from just winging it was a nightmare. :) '

Also, I mention in the PDF that you don't need to follow the percentages restrictions if you don't want to. :yes:

DeathGlam
22-07-2015, 14:34
Yeah, i have not been pushing anything, i was really shocked by their attitude, as in general its a pro house rule gaming club and for weeks they have been debating the best way to balance armies, like wounds, rating system etc plus saying things like Summoning and Shooting in close combat are both unbalanced.

I thought on to a winner with your work, solves plenty of the issues and is even in the same style as the GW PDFs so it will look nice in our printed out Warscrolls folder.

I suspect based on how fast they responded that they all just read the percentage page and thought it was an attempt to stop them bringing whatever they wanted or it could be that we just got our first ever GW/Warhammer store in the local area so maybe a few of them are now less keen on the play how we like not how GW say attitude, which would be a shame personally.

Anyway, i will leave it for now, i think in a month or two they will want to know if i still have that PDF. :p

Cheers for all the work again, really appreciated.

Alti Elfi
22-07-2015, 17:08
I'm working on a website to take care of the voting on points, it will be simple but practical.
What we need is a deadline for the first revision, like the end of August or something.
Let me know if this sounds interesting, I will keep working on it in any case.

Tidings
22-07-2015, 17:27
I'm working on a website to take care of the voting on points, it will be simple but practical.
What we need is a deadline for the first revision, like the end of August or something.
Let me know if this sounds interesting, I will keep working on it in any case.

Thank you so much for undertaking that project! When it's done we will just need to spread it as far and wide as we can.

-Tidings

Last Edition
22-07-2015, 18:32
I'm working on a website to take care of the voting on points, it will be simple but practical.
What we need is a deadline for the first revision, like the end of August or something.
Let me know if this sounds interesting, I will keep working on it in any case.

Big thumbs up for the initiative! :)

Alti Elfi
22-07-2015, 19:12
Big thumbs up for the initiative! :)

Well the site is up, I hope people will try it out, and I hope you get good feedback from the polling results. http://www.aoscomp.org/home.html
Currently the site just holds the polls, I think it is important that there is one place to go to for the points and comp, and right now I think this thread is the most appropriate.

Last Edition
22-07-2015, 20:26
Well the site is up, I hope people will try it out, and I hope you get good feedback from the polling results. http://www.aoscomp.org/home.html
Currently the site just holds the polls, I think it is important that there is one place to go to for the points and comp, and right now I think this thread is the most appropriate.

First of all, looks great :) second, you work fast! hehe
I will stop changing points based on feedback now, and hope this webpage does the job now - will probably do it much better.

Some small typos: Brettonia (Bretonnia) and Yor (your) in first sentence second paragraph :)

Tidings
22-07-2015, 21:25
Wow that was fast! Thanks a ton again man. We should get the link to the PDF rules and the poll site nice and HUGE on the original post so it's impossible to miss. It'll make directing people to them easier which will hopefully help spread it around faster!

-Tidings

Last Edition
22-07-2015, 22:09
Wow that was fast! Thanks a ton again man. We should get the link to the PDF rules and the poll site nice and HUGE on the original post so it's impossible to miss. It'll make directing people to them easier which will hopefully help spread it around faster!

-Tidings

Good Idea, consider it done.

DeathGlam
22-07-2015, 22:26
So got my first taste of AoS using these balancing rules tonight, Greenskins and Ogres vs Beastmen, 1200pts aside, felt really well balanced but will hopefully get more games in over the coming weeks.

Shogunate
23-07-2015, 12:49
Good Idea, consider it done.

If you haven't already, it may be worth contacting natfka and bols to let them know about this project. Bols posted an article about a far less developed custom points system the other day, and the voting website would really benefit from the attention.

Last Edition
25-07-2015, 12:22
So got my first taste of AoS using these balancing rules tonight, Greenskins and Ogres vs Beastmen, 1200pts aside, felt really well balanced but will hopefully get more games in over the coming weeks.
Good to hear. Hope it keeps up :)


If you haven't already, it may be worth contacting natfka and bols to let them know about this project. Bols posted an article about a far less developed custom points system the other day, and the voting website would really benefit from the attention.
That is a good idea, I just wanted the PDF to include the Stormcast Eternals and Bloodbound units before sending it off :)

FINALLY got my book (last time I pre-order anything from GW) and its updated with all current GW models.

Link: http://docdro.id/20f5WZr

Asmodai48
28-07-2015, 04:25
Liking the updates so far.

Also friend thinks kroxigors are too expensive.

Alti Elfi
28-07-2015, 19:24
Seems Dwarf slayers are missing.

Last Edition
28-07-2015, 19:49
oh damn, you're right. Will be updated in 10mins :)
Thanks for the heads up!

Last Edition
28-07-2015, 20:02
Liking the updates so far.

Also friend thinks kroxigors are too expensive.

Good to hear.

Concerning the Kroxigors: have he actually tried them at that point cost, because I have received feedback on the opposite - too cheap. I redid the calculation and still end up on same cost. Also, they seems vicious to me: 4 wounds, 4+ Armour save, 4 attacks and damage 2, probably one of the best infantry out there. Let me know if you guys still think that they are too expensive after more battles, or vote on the website ;)

UPDATED with Slayers.

Alti Elfi
28-07-2015, 20:23
Since the points will be static until there is more feedback, I'll post them on the polling site as well.
Some polling data has trickled in but it's still early days.

Tidings
28-07-2015, 20:27
I'll be playing some matches tonight with Wood Elves, High Elves and Vampire Counts. Will keep notes and poll accordingly. Glad the ball is rolling, even if it's slow at the moment!

-Tidings

Tidings
29-07-2015, 09:47
Played a couple games, and the High Elf Reavers seemed sliiiiightly undercosted. Only because they can move into range, shoot, then move again out of range. Super powerful ability. They also have 3 attacks, so they hit fairly hard and are tough as hell to actually catch. I'll use the poll to vote them up.

Other than that though, the games were very well balanced! Two of the most even Warhammer games I've ever played. They were small skirmishes of 400 points. Next week we'll work up to a bigger battle.

-Tidings

Last Edition
29-07-2015, 11:15
Since the points will be static until there is more feedback, I'll post them on the polling site as well.
Some polling data has trickled in but it's still early days.
Thanks Alti. yeah, I expected it to be a slow start :)


Played a couple games, and the High Elf Reavers seemed sliiiiightly undercosted. Only because they can move into range, shoot, then move again out of range. Super powerful ability. They also have 3 attacks, so they hit fairly hard and are tough as hell to actually catch. I'll use the poll to vote them up.

Other than that though, the games were very well balanced! Two of the most even Warhammer games I've ever played. They were small skirmishes of 400 points. Next week we'll work up to a bigger battle.

-Tidings
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff. I have always had an suspicious eye on the Reavers, they are sooo good. Vote them up and lets see how that works out :) Glad to hear the points are working out for you too; I am having a battle tomorrow - 1250 points vs Orcs, hope that become a fair game as well :)

Tidings
04-08-2015, 18:58
Any updates? Are people using the poll? I hope this doesn't die out! It's been working great for my friend and I.

-Tidings

Alti Elfi
04-08-2015, 20:45
Yes people are voting, but not many enough yet. The website has had about 900 visitors in the 2 weeks it's been up so there is at least some interrest. Hopefully we will have enough data in a month or two to make revisions.

Last Edition
05-08-2015, 12:53
Any updates? Are people using the poll? I hope this doesn't die out! It's been working great for my friend and I.

-Tidings
No updates from my end at the moment, but I will keep this updated every time GW release a new model, votes or new rules are released :)


Yes people are voting, but not many enough yet. The website has had about 900 visitors in the 2 weeks it's been up so there is at least some interrest. Hopefully we will have enough data in a month or two to make revisions.
900 visitors are not bad. There are just over 3000 downloads atm, hopefully more will visit and vote.

Kisanis
05-08-2015, 18:12
900 visitors and 3000 downloads is quite good! Esp since word of mouth is important.

I think there needs to be a central thread for "the big list of AoS point systems" just so people know there is variety.

No playtesting at my end, I likely wont be able to play any games until sept.

The joys of adulthood.

Sent from my Z30 using Tapatalk

Pilon4ik
06-08-2015, 19:04
I am Russian, so sorry for mistakes.
I am really like your handbook. It's very useful and help to play a competitive and fun game, but I thing there is some problem with skavens. Warp lightning cannon is too cheap. It's simple d6 mortal wounds every turn for 60 points. With 24" range!!
And Giant Rats. In a big swarms the could hit on a 2+. But with the pack master on 1+!!! Does it means auto hits?

Last Edition
06-08-2015, 21:58
I am Russian, so sorry for mistakes.
I am really like your handbook. It's very useful and help to play a competitive and fun game, but I thing there is some problem with skavens. Warp lightning cannon is too cheap. It's simple d6 mortal wounds every turn for 60 points. With 24" range!!
And Giant Rats. In a big swarms the could hit on a 2+. But with the pack master on 1+!!! Does it means auto hits?
Hi Pilon4ik
Yes, the Warp Lightning Cannon has been a headache for the get-go, but it does not cause D6 mortal wounds every turn. The cannon is very random, which creates a problem applying a value to it. But visit the AOSCOMP website and vote the cannon and rat swarms up in points, and it will be addressed :)

...and yes, they will auto hit on a 1+. Kill the pack master quickly :)

Tidings
12-08-2015, 06:46
Played a bunch of games with a High Elf opponent. We've both realized just how insanely broken Reavers are. Right now they are priced at 38 points, exactly the same as Glade Riders. They have better armor than Glade Riders, but other than that are very similar (4 inches less range, which rarely comes into play). That is, until you read the special rules. When shooting, if not in melee, they have 3 attacks instead of 2. And since we don't allow shooting when locked in melee, this means they always have 3 ranged attacks, except the formula never counted the third attack. And they have a special 2d6 move they can take before or after they shoot, which is infinitely more useful than the Glade Riders fast cav rule of running and shooting the same turn.

With Glade Riders, you can move, run, and then shoot. Realistically you are stopping as soon as you get within 20 inches of the target anyways, so that bonus run is of little value. You don't even use it after turn one most of the time. The Reavers on the other hand can move into range (16), shoot, then 2d6 run AWAY again behind cover.

On top of the third attack not being counted in the points, the mobility these guys have has so far proven to be better than anything else, even flying units. We didn't test any changes, but I think the next time we play, we'll try dropping the extra attack rule altogether and leave them with two attacks. We might try making them 10 points or so more per model as well. There mobility is so flexible that they can evade melee units pretty much indefinitely and can take objectives while harassing and then hiding on the same turn.

Hoping to hear what you guys think on how to fix these guys, because we both agree they are one of the best units in the game as is. Has anyone else tested against or with High Elves? What would you guys do to house rule these guys? I'll vote them up on the poll but I think they need more fixing than just bumping points up.

-Tidings

Last Edition
13-08-2015, 12:43
Played a bunch of games with a High Elf opponent. We've both realized just how insanely broken Reavers are. Right now they are priced at 38 points, exactly the same as Glade Riders. They have better armor than Glade Riders, but other than that are very similar (4 inches less range, which rarely comes into play). That is, until you read the special rules. When shooting, if not in melee, they have 3 attacks instead of 2. And since we don't allow shooting when locked in melee, this means they always have 3 ranged attacks, except the formula never counted the third attack. And they have a special 2d6 move they can take before or after they shoot, which is infinitely more useful than the Glade Riders fast cav rule of running and shooting the same turn.

With Glade Riders, you can move, run, and then shoot. Realistically you are stopping as soon as you get within 20 inches of the target anyways, so that bonus run is of little value. You don't even use it after turn one most of the time. The Reavers on the other hand can move into range (16), shoot, then 2d6 run AWAY again behind cover.

On top of the third attack not being counted in the points, the mobility these guys have has so far proven to be better than anything else, even flying units. We didn't test any changes, but I think the next time we play, we'll try dropping the extra attack rule altogether and leave them with two attacks. We might try making them 10 points or so more per model as well. There mobility is so flexible that they can evade melee units pretty much indefinitely and can take objectives while harassing and then hiding on the same turn.

Hoping to hear what you guys think on how to fix these guys, because we both agree they are one of the best units in the game as is. Has anyone else tested against or with High Elves? What would you guys do to house rule these guys? I'll vote them up on the poll but I think they need more fixing than just bumping points up.

-Tidings
Firstly, I agree that the High Elf Reavers are very good because of the reasons you mentioned (and yes, they are calculated with 3 shooting attacks). But I would not reduce their damage out-put due to that not being one of their main strengths, it's their mobility. If you don't want to wait for a point rememdy (next update is when I get the Ghal Maraz book), I would house rule that they can only do their Purebreed move BEFORE doing their shooting attack... or if you play in a friendly environment, ask the opponent to just field 5 reavers - 5 reavers can't ruin a game :) I found that other shooting cavalry is a good remedy as the reavers can't hide from them.

Thanks for the feedback, Tidings! We will find correct point value for the Reavers, eventually :) Btw, what Army are you playing Tidings?

Next update is due end of next week: All forgeworld models with rules, Quest for Ghal Maraz and points adjustments based on poll (if available).

Tidings
13-08-2015, 15:50
I'm playing Wood Elves and Vampire Counts, and eventually orcs and goblins! I'm confused though, how are Reavers the exact same points as Glade Riders with better armor and an additional attack? Is the formula taking range into account? If so, I'd argue that it shouldn't, since range is completely negligible after the first turn anyways in most cases. Everything moves so fast in AoS.

It's odd because while I'm enjoying wood elves and their general increased ability to do damage, I'm not enjoying that they are no longer exceptionally mobile or superior archers. Those were the two things they excelled at before and now other armies do better. I'm not complaining, I can actually damage things now instead if auto losing to toughness 4 armies. It's just different!

Pretty soon we'll get some test games in with a sigmarine opponent!

-Tidings

Last Edition
13-08-2015, 17:18
Except for some few models, the movement is about the same. It does feels faster as units can move in any direction, but that makes range and move even more important. Off course range on weapons has to be calculated into the point cost of a model, right or wrong for that particular model, but the 'real' value of the model will obvious later due to play testing, like you guys do. Thats how you get a correct point value. Math can never conclude a correct point value as long as there are special rules. I have seen many comp packs that purely calculate value from the models stats, with little luck.

Concerning Glade Riders vs Reavers, I did a quick calculation and both land on 25 bonuses X 1,5 =37,5 points. I have probably undervalued the Purebreed special rule for the Reavers... Which units are you trying to counter the Reavers with? I feel Hexwraiths and Wild riders would be a good counter; fast and just hard hitting enough to cripple them...

Good Luck against the Sigmarites :)

Tidings
13-08-2015, 19:52
I guess I'm just confused because Glade Riders are exactly the same points, except have worse stats. I think they have the same number of special rules too. They have 100% less armor, 33% less damage output, and a negligible 4" extra range (which doesn't matter most of the time anyways), but they cost the same? Special movement rules aside the Reavers should already cost quite a bit more.

I voted them up but I don't see many other people testing High Elves... :/

We are playing very small skirmishes, but I often tie them up with hounds, since they can't kill the hounds quickly and if they retreat the hounds just catch them again. I tried using a Great Eagle but they are able to just kill it without much issue. All in all, it's not having a huge effect on the game, other than he sees no reason to not field them, and I see no reason to field Glade Riders, since Reavers are so obviously superior. The imbalance just shoehorns us into building lists a certain way. I have to take something to tie them up, and he has to take them since they are such good value.

Looking forward to testing against them! :D

-Tidings

vash1313
14-08-2015, 15:05
An observation:

As I’ve played AoS, I’ve noticed that maneuvering for the charge was less important in light of players alternating choosing units to fight and the ability to simply move within three inches and pile in for a sure thing rather than chancing the charge roll. I think the house rules you have created for charging and piling in may have diminished some of the tactical advantage of charging as opposed to simply moving up to within three inches and then piling in.

When I look at the official rules for piling in, they say that a model may advance three inches toward the nearest enemy model. While this could be interpreted several ways, I think one of the most obvious plain language meanings of the text would be that a model does not have to move directly toward the nearest model but may not move away from the nearest model. While the rule does not mandate a straight line, often times such a move will be required. This means that pile in moves are purposely designed to be very limited, mainly allowing models to move up and engage the enemy to replace casualties or to wrap around the unit to a limited degree. One way that we have been playing is that a model that comes into base to base contact with the closest enemy model may move around that model’s base since this does not move it further away from the enemy, but it must remain in base to base contact. (We also use bases for measuring rather than the models).

Charging only has the following limitations: you have to be within twelve inches of the target you want to charge, you have to be more than three inches away from the target unit, the closest model has to end within a half inch of the target, and you can only charge 2d6. Charging is always a gamble; even if your closest model is just over three inches away, double one’s will result in a failed charge and your unit will be too far away to make pile in attacks. Keeping in mind the limitations to pile in moves discussed above, declaring a charge has several key advantages. Charging allows a unit to move 2d6 inches while ignoring the normal restrictions on moving within three inches of the enemy in the movement phase. Charging is not limited to a straight line like pile in moves; during a charge, as long as the closest model ends within a half inch of the enemy unit, the rest of your unit may move the full 2d6 around the unit and then end their move within three inches – this will allow you to surround a unit and then use your pile in move to maximize the number of enemy models you engage.

I feel like the rules you included reduce charging to a way to engage a unit that is further away and make piling in much more effective by allowing three inches of movement toward the unit and not the closest model.

Like I said, just some observations that I thought I would share for discussion.

Tidings
14-08-2015, 16:42
Maybe I'm missunderstanding what you are saying, but you are only allowed to pile in if you are WITHIN 3 inches. When you end your moment you must be at least 3 inches away from any enemy model, and are therefore not allowed to pile in. Not to mention that even if you could play it this way, you would probably only get one or two of the closest guys in range to fight, and the rest would get no attacks.

-Tidings

Last Edition
16-08-2015, 13:11
An observation:

As I’ve played AoS, I’ve noticed that maneuvering for the charge was less important in light of players alternating choosing units to fight and the ability to simply move within three inches and pile in for a sure thing rather than chancing the charge roll. I think the house rules you have created for charging and piling in may have diminished some of the tactical advantage of charging as opposed to simply moving up to within three inches and then piling in.

When I look at the official rules for piling in, they say that a model may advance three inches toward the nearest enemy model. While this could be interpreted several ways, I think one of the most obvious plain language meanings of the text would be that a model does not have to move directly toward the nearest model but may not move away from the nearest model. While the rule does not mandate a straight line, often times such a move will be required. This means that pile in moves are purposely designed to be very limited, mainly allowing models to move up and engage the enemy to replace casualties or to wrap around the unit to a limited degree. One way that we have been playing is that a model that comes into base to base contact with the closest enemy model may move around that model’s base since this does not move it further away from the enemy, but it must remain in base to base contact. (We also use bases for measuring rather than the models).

Charging only has the following limitations: you have to be within twelve inches of the target you want to charge, you have to be more than three inches away from the target unit, the closest model has to end within a half inch of the target, and you can only charge 2d6. Charging is always a gamble; even if your closest model is just over three inches away, double one’s will result in a failed charge and your unit will be too far away to make pile in attacks. Keeping in mind the limitations to pile in moves discussed above, declaring a charge has several key advantages. Charging allows a unit to move 2d6 inches while ignoring the normal restrictions on moving within three inches of the enemy in the movement phase. Charging is not limited to a straight line like pile in moves; during a charge, as long as the closest model ends within a half inch of the enemy unit, the rest of your unit may move the full 2d6 around the unit and then end their move within three inches – this will allow you to surround a unit and then use your pile in move to maximize the number of enemy models you engage.

I feel like the rules you included reduce charging to a way to engage a unit that is further away and make piling in much more effective by allowing three inches of movement toward the unit and not the closest model.

Like I said, just some observations that I thought I would share for discussion.

Hi vash1313,
I like your observation, but I don't see a problem with it. Initially I wanted more freedom and the possibility of allowing tactical decisions in the pile-in part of combat; I see little use of special rules that allow you to pile in 6" if they are not allowed to move those 6", only shortest route to nearest model. If a successful charge engage you with more that one unit, you should be allowed to pile in towards any of those units you are locked in combat with (providing the model is closer to that unit you wish to pile in towards). If you mean that you are allowed to pile in towards a unit you are not within 3" of, you can't due to the rules.

Am I understanding your point? :)

Epic21
01-09-2015, 18:06
I may be blind but I cant find your calculating formula. It says look at the bottom of the first post. Can you help me out please? :D

Last Edition
04-09-2015, 13:22
@Epic21,

Link: http://docdro.id/15o39

On a different subject, I'm sorry I haven't updated the last units released, but I am out traveling atm. Updates will come as soon as I get back home :)

Blood C
04-09-2015, 15:45
Hi everybody! First of all i wanted to thank you for your work creating this system point. It's really good and we are playing a lot of balanced and funny matches thanks to it. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS!
A little question if i may ask, the points we can find in your site are the updated version of the ones we can find in the PDF handbook?
Thanks in advance and sorry if my english is not so good

Last Edition
05-09-2015, 13:09
Hi everybody! First of all i wanted to thank you for your work creating this system point. It's really good and we are playing a lot of balanced and funny matches thanks to it. CONGRATULATIONS AND THANKS!
A little question if i may ask, the points we can find in your site are the updated version of the ones we can find in the PDF handbook?
Thanks in advance and sorry if my english is not so good

Hey Blood C,
I'm glad to hear the points are creating good games for you and your opponents :)
To your question: I did not create the website, but both the PDF and the website should have the same points. If not, default to the PDF document, but also let us know which points that don't match and we'll try and fix it as quickly as possible :)

Blood C
05-09-2015, 19:34
Hey Blood C,
I'm glad to hear the points are creating good games for you and your opponents :)
To your question: I did not create the website, but both the PDF and the website should have the same points. If not, default to the PDF document, but also let us know which points that don't match and we'll try and fix it as quickly as possible :)

Thanks for your answer :) now i don't exactly remember, but differences between the website and the PDF are a lot. Some examples: The Fay Enchantress (PDF: 285, website: 215), Paesant bowmen (PDF: 8, website: 10), Field Trebuchet (PDF: 140, website: 120), dwarf cannon (PDF: 180, website: 210) and so on. Differences are many :) But thanks for the advice, we will default back to the PDF for our matches :)

nanogasn
13-10-2015, 00:59
Registered here just to say thanks for this!

Might be good to add a version # or a 'date last edited' to the guide, so we can easily tell when an update has been made.

purplecow
08-01-2016, 02:20
Has anyone made an attempt at point values for the new Archaon and the Varangaurd?

HelloKitty
08-01-2016, 13:11
Most of the major comps have done that. Azyr did it on the weekend the book dropped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

purplecow
10-01-2016, 01:12
Most of the major comps have done that. Azyr did it on the weekend the book dropped.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thx, this was the only point doc that I was aware of. I will look Azyr up.

Dark_Mage99
12-01-2016, 11:27
How are you guys finding this? Not too many replies recently.

I'm getting into the game and weighing up the various systems people have created.

Those who are using/have used this one, was it good fun?

It seems like a lot of work has gone into it, but some of the points values seem off on first glance.

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 15:06
I'd say the majority of people went to one of the primary four or so comps (based on the facebook responses etc) and I'd also say the pro-AOS community is also very anti comp (three of four people in those fb groups chastise comp for not being needed)

If anything I'd also say a large number of the people here just went over to KoW, which is a shame.

Dark_Mage99
12-01-2016, 16:56
I'd say the majority of people went to one of the primary four or so comps (based on the facebook responses etc) and I'd also say the pro-AOS community is also very anti comp (three of four people in those fb groups chastise comp for not being needed)

If anything I'd also say a large number of the people here just went over to KoW, which is a shame.

Would you mind pointing me in the direction of those big four? I presume one is SDK? I'm looking to find as many as possible.

HelloKitty
12-01-2016, 20:24
Azyr, sdk, clash comp, ppc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gillburg
23-01-2016, 21:55
Chaos Dwarfs?