Switch Theme:

Bretonnian New Unit- Foot Knights  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Me and my brother were looking for alternative models for use in warhammer, and we noticed many different dismounted knight models. We decided that Bretonnia needed dismounted knights of their own, so we used the Knights of the Realm rules and modified them, until we got this. Enjoy!


(Version 3.0)


Foot Knights Points/model: 10
Slot: Special

Foot Knight/Gallant
M_WS_BS_S_T__W_I_A_Ld
4__4___3_3_3__1_3_1__8
4__4___3_3_3__1_3_2__8

Unit Size: 5-20

Equipment: Hand weapon, heavy armour and shield.

Champion: One Foot Knight must always be upgraded to a Gallant at no additional cost.

Options:
• Upgrade one Foot Knight to a Musician for +6 pts
• Upgrade one Foot Knight to a Standard Bearer for +12 pts
• Any unit may carry a magic banner worth up to 25 pts

Additional Equipment:
• Halberds.........…………………………….1pt/model
• Great weapons…………………………...2pts/model

Special Rules:
The Knight’s Vow




What does Dakka think? Are they costed fairly?

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2013/01/04 09:16:57


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





They are the new Empire swordsmen with +1 armor a free champion, 1pt for morning star 2pts for a GW and a magic banner.

So no, they are way cheap.

If they are Core they should lose the morning star, GW, free champ. Basically a heavy armor infantry for +1 (8) pt. Maybe should be +2 (9) I don't know what the knight's vow is. If they are Special, I don't know what they should get, it's a bit tougher.

   
Made in us
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms






Chino Hills, CA

The Knight's Vow is a Bretonnian special rule, within the army book.

I agree with Duke, they're way too cheap.

The regular Knight of the Realm is 24 points. On a Paladin, I think the horse is 8 points, IIRC.

16 seems appropriate. They're expensive, as they should be. What knight would want to ride to battle without his steed? The cost should reflect that.

Some people play to win, some people play for fun. Me? I play to kill toy soldiers.
DR:90S++GMB++IPwh40k206#+D++A++/hWD350R+++T(S)DM+

WHFB, AoS, 40k, WM/H, Starship Troopers Miniatures, FoW

 
   
Made in gb
Drakhun





They are a bit cheap. But Bretonnian units always have a unit champion for free anyway.

DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+
Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Well, they are basically Empire Swordsmen with a 1 point better save and free champion, so being only 1 point more seems a little on the cheap side. But then again, Empire Swordsmen are pretty universally acknowledged to be overpriced, and all the troops in the Empire book are a little expensive (made up by the discount given on Warrior Priests and other similar stuff).

So 8 points maybe sounds pretty reasonable.




 Cryonicleech wrote:
The regular Knight of the Realm is 24 points. On a Paladin, I think the horse is 8 points, IIRC.

16 seems appropriate. They're expensive, as they should be. What knight would want to ride to battle without his steed? The cost should reflect that.


16 points for a guy with WS4, a 4+ save nothing else? You think these guys should cost more than a White Lion?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Swordsmen can't get banners or morning stars or heavy armor or, more importantly, Great Weapons. A 10pt 5Str unit in heavy armor is actually really really good.

It's not 16pts good. But I'd say it needs to be more expensive than other elite core infantry. Those could probably beat orc boys for cost.

I think the whole point is to make them an additional aid, not turn Bretonnians into a foot slogging powerhouse. But again, I don't know the book well (at all).

Greatswords cost 11 and have the above stats. Cept +1 armor, Stubborn(!) and are Special. Oh, and 10+ unit size. So they gotta be more than that cuz they are nearly identical and the horse army can't be out-manning the infantry army.

   
Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Thanks for all the responses guys

this unit would be Special, since they are rarer than mounted Knights of the Realm.

the point is to give bretonnia some harder and more skilled infantry, to anchor the lines of men at arms and archers while the knights charge off to break the enemy.

ok, i see that a few costs need to be raised. that is cool. what should i price the great weapon upgrade as?

and would 10 pts be reasonable as a base cost?

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
Swordsmen can't get banners or morning stars or heavy armor or, more importantly, Great Weapons.


They pay for those things. And as I already said, Swordsmen are a misleading points comparison because they're terrible value for what you get, and no-one takes them because of that. If you want to design a unit that no-one takes because it's too expensive, then Swordsmen are a good unit to compare to, otherwise not so much.

Greatswords cost 11 and have the above stats. Cept +1 armor, Stubborn(!) and are Special. Oh, and 10+ unit size. So they gotta be more than that cuz they are nearly identical and the horse army can't be out-manning the infantry army.


Yeah, when I thought about the upgrade to great weapons that was my next thought, and I figured much the same as yourself. The extra point of armour and stubborn is worth at least 1 point (and Empire get access to cheap-o Warrior Priests and buff wagons to boot). So having these guys with great weapons for 10 points is probably a touch on the expensive end, but that's okay, because Empire are supposed to have infantry as their better options, while Bretonnians are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackhoof wrote:
ok, i see that a few costs need to be raised. that is cool. what should i price the great weapon upgrade as?

and would 10 pts be reasonable as a base cost?


No, I think the prices given are pretty decent.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/11 05:12:00


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Fanatic with Madcap Mushrooms






Chino Hills, CA

 sebster wrote:
16 points for a guy with WS4, a 4+ save nothing else? You think these guys should cost more than a White Lion?


Ach, that's not good then. Overpriced Knights much =/

Reading the arguments presented, 8-9 seems fair. Especially as the unit size caps out at 20.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/11 06:23:12


Some people play to win, some people play for fun. Me? I play to kill toy soldiers.
DR:90S++GMB++IPwh40k206#+D++A++/hWD350R+++T(S)DM+

WHFB, AoS, 40k, WM/H, Starship Troopers Miniatures, FoW

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:
They pay for those things. And as I already said, Swordsmen are a misleading points comparison because they're terrible value for what you get, and no-one takes them because of that. If you want to design a unit that no-one takes because it's too expensive, then Swordsmen are a good unit to compare to, otherwise not so much.

Swordsmen can't get them at all, paying or not. An option is still worth more than not having it. Swordsmen are 8th, you can't balance back to 7th. Black Orcs are 12pts and have the same stats except ITP and their choppas thing and array of weapons. They have to pay for a shield and a boss, lower Init but higher T. They can't be better than BO. It doesn't matter if BO aren't the best deal in town, that's what you're balancing to. So unless you want to chain reaction and rebalance every infantry, you should just stick with making them square with 8th. Black Orcs using a GW still cost 12 and would lose to these guys on points, and that's Orcs.

Frankly, if you just made them like 9 and took away their ability to have GW this would get a lot cleaner.

It's like other armies have war machines. But if they have something that works like a trebuchet for cheaper than a treb, then the bret players aren't going to be too happy.

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





I've got some thoughts:

- no great weapons. Those are for Questing Knights only. How 'bout halberds? +1pt/model.

- The Knight's Vow: they won't Panic when Peasants run and/or die.
...what about The Blessing? They needs them some Blessing of the Lady. It won't come up as much, with Parry, but it still needs to be there.

- I wouldn't call these guys Special. I'd call them Core, to be used in special scenarios where the Bretonnians have to defend their keeps and castles. Sometimes, a knight has to mount the battlements to fend off attackers, rather than ride out to meet them.

- Comparing them to Black Orcs: -1S, -1T, +1I, shield, no additional hand weapon, no Immune to Psychology, no Choppas, +Vow and Blessing.

I would say Black Orcs are better. By a lot. Even comparing the Orcs to great weapon-wielding versions of these guys (which, as I said, I am staunchly against): the Orcs use two hand weapons, causing 3.5 and taking 3.3, assuming they don't reduce attacks back.
Then you consider that the Orcs can also tackle heavily armoured foes, weather arrow/magic storms a jillion times better (ITP and T4).

I think a better comparison would be Dwarf Warriors: -1T, +1I, +1M, -1Ld, +shield, Vow and Blessing, no Grudge/Relentless/-1 to flee/pursue.

-1 T and Ld is significant, but losing the Dwarf rules to gain the Bretonnian ones is a good deal in the other direction. I'd call it a wash.

If you made them 9pts, I'd say they'd be comparable to Dwarf Warriors, with very similar tactical roles. But then, I think Dwarf Warriors should have shields for free.

So, in conclusion: I think they're fine the way they are. Just offer them halberds instead of great weapons. Morning stars...eh. I wouldn't bother. No one's going to take +1S and no Parry for +1pt/model on an infantry unit that isn't going to be breaking anyone any time soon.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
Swordsmen can't get them at all, paying or not.


Who cares? If they don't take the option they're an 8 point unit with certain stats and equipment, if they do take the option then they're a 10 point model with certain stats and equipment.

An option is still worth more than not having it.


No, you don't go into battle with options. You go into battle with what options you selected. The options you didn't take are worth zero. The options you did take should be worth what you paid for them.

Swordsmen are 8th, you can't balance back to 7th. Black Orcs are 12pts and have the same stats except ITP and their choppas thing and array of weapons. They have to pay for a shield and a boss, lower Init but higher T.


And higher Strength and higher Leadership. At which point there are more differences than similarities, and the comparison is really quite useless.

Frankly, if you just made them like 9 and took away their ability to have GW this would get a lot cleaner.


Then you'd have Swordsmen that are two points extra, all to get a free champion and heavy armour. Which is a mediocre deal, on top of Swordsmen already being a terrible deal.

Given swordsmen are really worth 6 points, and these Bretonian troops don't get cheapo Warrior Priests and buff wagons, then a base price of 8 points per model is still nothing remarkable.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





No, options are worthwhile even if you don't use them. Having the options for WoC marks and having the options of halberds, GW, bows, heavy armor, shields, magic banners, champion, makes whatever base unit that is incredibly flexible. Which makes your army capable of using different strategies. Which makes that unit more worthwhile just by existing with those options.

Then you'd have Swordsmen that are two points extra, all to get a free champion and heavy armour. Which is a mediocre deal, on top of Swordsmen already being a terrible deal.

a) because of the unit size of the this unit, the free champ is worth about 1 point to the base cost of the each model b) heavy armor is worth a lot, generally at least 10% of the base cost, which again is going to kick you up near a point c) you're making swordsmen out to be a lot worse than they are. Orc Boyz are 7 with a shield, same as Swordsmen. +1T in exchange for -1I and Animosity and Choppas. Boyz aren't as good as savages, but they are still all peers.

   
Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Warpsolution wrote:
I've got some thoughts:
So, in conclusion: I think they're fine the way they are. Just offer them halberds instead of great weapons. Morning stars...eh. I wouldn't bother. No one's going to take +1S and no Parry for +1pt/model on an infantry unit that isn't going to be breaking anyone any time soon.


hmmm.... perhaps you are right about the morning stars. they can have halberds instead.

   
Made in gb
Nimble Pistolier





Belfast

do halberds and morning stars not do the same thing, +1s and no parry?

The Men of Ostermark 6K

http://japehlio.blogspot.com/

Custom Insignia? Theming an army? I take sculpting commissions. PM me for more information. 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
No, options are worthwhile even if you don't use them. Having the options for WoC marks and having the options of halberds, GW, bows, heavy armor, shields, magic banners, champion, makes whatever base unit that is incredibly flexible. Which makes your army capable of using different strategies. Which makes that unit more worthwhile just by existing with those options.


No it doesn't. The unit is capable of the strategies as per the options it takes. I don't put chaos warriors in the field saying 'they're excellent because I can use them as a blender because of the halberds I gave them, but they're also hypothetically valuable in the hypothetical role of an anvil unit because of the options they have in the book that I didn't take.'

End result of this is really, really simple. You look at a unit, and you say 'is this unit with handweapons, heavy armour and shields worth 8 points?' Then you look at the same thing and say 'is this unit with greatweapons, heavy armour and shields worth 10 points'.

Because they're the things that will actually be seen on the field. That one was an optional expansion to the other means nothing.


a) because of the unit size of the this unit, the free champ is worth about 1 point to the base cost of the each model


If the unit is 10 models big, that'd be true. No-one is taking these guys at ten models big so really that's just nonsense. 30, 40 or 50 models is far more likely, at which point you're looking at something closer to 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 of a model in value.

b) heavy armor is worth a lot, generally at least 10% of the base cost, which again is going to kick you up near a point


By your own logic there it's worth just under a point. Add in the value of the free champion, and you're up to one point. Which you add to that 7 point base and you get, oh look, 8 points per model.

c) you're making swordsmen out to be a lot worse than they are. Orc Boyz are 7 with a shield, same as Swordsmen. +1T in exchange for -1I and Animosity and Choppas.


And devestating charge. And no-one takes Orcs with spears, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 japehlio wrote:
do halberds and morning stars not do the same thing, +1s and no parry?


Maces allow you to keep using your shields in close combat, while halberds do not. But maces only give the strength bonus in the first turn, while halberds give their bonus every turn.

Which means maces are good options for a unit that hacks it's way through the enemy quickly, breaks them and moves on to a new enemy. Warpsolution quite rightly pointed out these knights on foot would not be that unit, and so it's a bad option for them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/13 03:48:56


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Chaos Warriors with 4 mark choices is more valuable in an army than Chaos Warriors with 0 mark choices.

If you don't use the marks they are exactly identical. But the first unit is still going to cost more because it has the right of refusal to be as sucky as the 2nd.

   
Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





i am so happy with all the discussion that my idea has provoked

after all this discussion, i am thinking that 9 points a model is fair. with great weapons they are then 11 points a model, the same as Empire Greatswords. Greatswords, as has been pointed out, have stubborn, and +1 armour. however, they do not get a free champion, nor the option for a magic banner, or the option to be cheaper by not taking great weapons, and no Knights Vow.

So i think that that is fair.

   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Blackhoof wrote:
i am so happy with all the discussion that my idea has provoked

after all this discussion, i am thinking that 9 points a model is fair. with great weapons they are then 11 points a model, the same as Empire Greatswords. Greatswords, as has been pointed out, have stubborn, and +1 armour. however, they do not get a free champion, nor the option for a magic banner, or the option to be cheaper by not taking great weapons, and no Knights Vow.

So i think that that is fair.


Greatswords get a magic banner. And once again, the potential to take an option is not something you should pay points for. Else you end up putting troops into field having 'paid' for the stuff they might have taken.

It's a nonsense. I mean, why should these guys pay a premium because there's an option to move to great weapons. In the Empire book there's Halberdiers and there's Greatswords, two seperate units. Just like you could give these guys the upgrade to greatweapons or not, I can pick the Halberdiers or the Greatswords. Should the Empire pay a premium for having the option of two units, and if so which unit pays it, or do both pay?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I mean, why should these guys pay a premium because there's an option to move to great weapons

Yes. It frankly doesn't work well with units that are this cheap. But a Slann, with it's ridiculous amount of options should always going to be more expensive than, say, a Orc great Shaman, even if they somehow worked out to have the same bonuses/abilities. Because the slann has a ridiculous amount of more options.

I am starting a new job tomorrow (yay me). I'm a computer programmer hired to do java. If they are evaluating 2 people for the job, me as a java programmer solely and another dude who knows java and 5 other languages and is a database admin, the 2nd guy will make more money. Even though the job is just for java. Because the 2nd dude has more options.

A wildcard in a game of cards that's used as a Jack is still better than a jack because it's a wildcard. It might be that in one instance it's exactly the same as a jack, but you'd still always pray for that wildcard because it has more options.

I have a shotgun that I use to shoot skeet. It is capable of taking shells that are 2 3/4", 3", 3 1/2 inches. It is more expensive than a gun that can only shoot 2 3/4" shells even though I only use 2 3/4" shells shoot skeet. It has more options even if I don't use them.

   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I think great weapons could be an option. I also think there should be an option (or make it mandatory) for access to the Questing Vow or whatever it's called.

If Questing Knights give up their lances, seems appropriate that they might give up their horses too.
   
Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Hmmmm that could work...
An upgrade, turning them from horseless knights of the realm to horseless questing knights.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

With knights vow, these guys get the blessing, right?
11 points for a dude with 4+ vs shooting, 5+ in melee, and the blessing, and a great weapon is pretty good.
I'm not sure about the unit size of 20.
They are good individually for 11 points, but with a limit of 20, I don't know if they are worth it.

I'd give the S4 and Questing Knight, along with either halberd or great weapon (no hand weapon only option).
Then make the Grail Reg a little better, giving you 2 options for infantry in specials, the durable Grail pilgrims, or the choppy foot knights.

-Matt


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





DukeRustfield wrote:
Yes. It frankly doesn't work well with units that are this cheap. But a Slann, with it's ridiculous amount of options should always going to be more expensive than, say, a Orc great Shaman, even if they somehow worked out to have the same bonuses/abilities. Because the slann has a ridiculous amount of more options.


No, if they end up on the field with the same options, they should cost the same. You don't pay for stuff you might have taken.

I am starting a new job tomorrow (yay me). I'm a computer programmer hired to do java. If they are evaluating 2 people for the job, me as a java programmer solely and another dude who knows java and 5 other languages and is a database admin, the 2nd guy will make more money. Even though the job is just for java. Because the 2nd dude has more options.


But that guy could potentially add value to the company if those other languages are needed. There is scope there for those options to possibly be used. Whereas these troops don't have that option anymore. The choice is made, they're committed to the field, and their points should reflect what they are, not what they might have been.

Think of it this way - you're negotiating the pay for your new job, and you say you want a bit more because you could have learned C++. You clarify you don't know C++, you were simply offered a spot in a school teaching it, but instead you took a year to travel. You know as much C++ as everyone that was never even offered a place to be taught the language, but you think you deserve a little more because you had the option to have taken it.

Well, these troops with swords and shields are guys that could have taken greatswords, but didn't. Which means, on the field, they're worth as much any other soldier with sword and shield that never had the option. And if the option for great weapons is taken, well then they're worth as much as any other great weapon armed soldier who never had the option to have swords and shields.

And congrats on the new job

A wildcard in a game of cards that's used as a Jack is still better than a jack because it's a wildcard. It might be that in one instance it's exactly the same as a jack, but you'd still always pray for that wildcard because it has more options.


Yes, it's more valuable than the Jack... until it is used as a jack, then it's worth exactly the same thing as a Jack. The point is that once you've picked out your options and paid the points and completed your list... then you have a Jack in your hand, it's no longer a wild card because there's no longer any option to change what it might have been.

I have a shotgun that I use to shoot skeet. It is capable of taking shells that are 2 3/4", 3", 3 1/2 inches. It is more expensive than a gun that can only shoot 2 3/4" shells even though I only use 2 3/4" shells shoot skeet. It has more options even if I don't use them.


But it continues to have that flexibility. You haven't modified it so that it can only shoot skeet. Whereas in building a list in Warhammer, once you've picked the options and finalised your list, the options you didn't take are no longer possible. Once your army hits the table, those options aren't available anymore. It isn't like, say, Armed to Da Teef, which is a flexibility that you can take advantage of in the field, it gives you adaptability, increases the chance that you'll have the right tool for the job. Whereas here you've got guys that on the field are Swordsmen, and can't be anything but Swordsman no matter what they might have been during list building. Or if you gave them the upgrade then they're similar to Greatswords, but the choice to make them one or the other happens in list building.

Think of it this way - you could have two options listed in the book. One is called Foot Knights with Swords and Shields. Right next to it is an option called Foot Knights with Great Weapons. Other than the weapon choice both options are identical. This represents exactly the same flexibility as having one unit with a possibly upgrade to great weapons. Should there be a premium paid because there's two different options in the book, or only if there's one choice with an upgrade option?

And if so, should the Empire pay a premium because there are options for Halberdiers, Spearmen and Swordsmen? Should they be priced any differently if it was State Troops for 5 points, with a +1 option for halberds, and a +2 option for handweapons, shields and +1 bonus to weapon skill?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/12/17 09:45:09


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





As I said, I don't think great weapons make much sense for regular Bretonnian infantry. I do like the idea of on-foot Questing Knights, though. If any knights need to slog through the muck with the rest of us, it's Questing Knights.

Still, I don't think that Bretonnians should have ready access to reliable infantry. A 0-1 choice or 1/unit of (enter name of appropriate unit) Knights, or, how I'd do it, using them with special scenario rules, or maybe some combination of these all makes more sense.
If Bretonnians could field what are almost identical in performance and purpose to Dwarf Warriors, I think you could expect to see one or two large units of them in basically every list:

- BSB and wizards
- Knights Errant (basically to fill up Core)
- S5 infantry
- trebs

You'd need to put some kind of limitation on them, to keep the Bretonnian feel.

As far as options vs not:

- I think a unit gets better--as a whole, not game-by-game--as it gets more options. I don't think anyone's going to argue that point.
Chaos Warriors can have S4 A2 with 3+/5+ or S5 A3 with 4+, and so on. I think we can all agree it's a better unit for that flexibility, even though they only benefit from one mark/weapon choice per game.

- the problem is, the influence the number of choices a unit has on its cost has diminishing returns. I mean, if my Clanrats could take spears, halberds, shields, slings, crossbows, and great weapons, would they need to cost much more than they would with half of those options? And that's not even considering that, due to the nature of Warhammer, one of those options will almost always be better than the others, so it might as well be the only one (I'd take great weapon Clanrats all day, every day in 8th).

Really, the effect that a unit's options should have on its cost is so minor it's barely worth mentioning. But it is--however barely--worth mentioning.
I think most of the "cost" of such units is best calculated by comparing the unit and the rest of its army to other armies. Chaos Warriors are basically The Best Core, so, in addition to making them cost a lot, which they need to anyway, since they're awesome, the army book as a whole needs to take a hit.

Overall, I'd say I agree with both of you. I think Sebster's theories will lead us further down a path to creating a Better and Brighter Game, but Duke's logic has the simple ring of Truth to it as well.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Warpsolution wrote:
- I think a unit gets better--as a whole, not game-by-game--as it gets more options. I don't think anyone's going to argue that point.


I'd argue the whole is only the product of all the games played.

- the problem is, the influence the number of choices a unit has on its cost has diminishing returns. I mean, if my Clanrats could take spears, halberds, shields, slings, crossbows, and great weapons, would they need to cost much more than they would with half of those options?


True, though at the same time having secondary options actually makes all the options more valuable. The classic example is Chaos Warriors, who have powerful options in choosing between different weapon load outs, but then on top of that have the option to take a mark that compliments the weapon load out - Tzeentch on top of hand weapon and shield, Khorne on top of halberds.

Which makes it difficult to properly cost each option. But I just don't think the answer to that is to charge a base price simply for the option existing. Else what you're almost inevitably going to get is an overpriced default unit, where you have to pick the underpriced options to make a viable unit.

And that's not even considering that, due to the nature of Warhammer, one of those options will almost always be better than the others, so it might as well be the only one (I'd take great weapon Clanrats all day, every day in 8th).


That comes down to proper pricing. Great weapons for clan rats would be, as you say, an assumed automatic choice, but that's because we assume they'd be the +1 or +2 cost you get with most upgrades. But if you made them a 12 point upgrade then no-one would ever take them. Somewhere in between 2 points and 12 points there's a value that people will have to think about.

I think Sebster's theories will lead us further down a path to creating a Better and Brighter Game, but Duke's logic has the simple ring of Truth to it as well.


I think that probably sums up pretty well why Duke and I keep butting heads. I tend to think in terms of the overall game, and under the assumption that if a rule change knocks something else out of whack, well then we can fix that as well. Whereas Duke seems to think purely in terms of this rule change, and assumes all other things must remain equal. I think both our approaches have advantages and weaknesses.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 sebster wrote:

No, if they end up on the field with the same options, they should cost the same. You don't pay for stuff you might have taken.

Yes you do. Because the options are there for the next game. An army book has a finite series of choices. A Lizardman army where Saurus can't use spears is worse than a Lizardman army where Saurus have the option of using spears. If we ran simulations of 50,000 games or something, the spear-capable Lizardman army would win more often. That option increases the value of the army and thus the unit itself is more valuable.

But that guy could potentially add value to the company if those other languages are needed.

Yes. That's exactly the point and what I've been saying. My emphasis added.

Which means, on the field, they're worth as much any other soldier with sword and shield that never had the option.

There are 2 places where units are priced. DURING a game and in the book itself. Buying a weapon/item/option obviously has a direct cost. But the options of more affects the static cost of the unit, even if you don't use it. A unit that has a 100pt magic item limit vs. a 50pt limit is more valuable even if you don't use that 50pts. By your logic if it wasn't more valuable, you could give every hero a 100pt magic limit and the only thing that matters is what they actually purchase. Hell, give them a 250pt limit. That's clearly not the case. The option of having that expanded list is valuable in and of itself.

And congrats on the new job

It's sucky.

But it continues to have that flexibility. You haven't modified it so that it can only shoot skeet. Whereas in building a list in Warhammer, once you've picked the options and finalised your list, the options you didn't take are no longer possible.

But they are. They are available all over the world at the very same second by any number of other players. They are even available to the same player in the next game.

Think of it this way - you could have two options listed in the book. One is called Foot Knights with Swords and Shields. Right next to it is an option called Foot Knights with Great Weapons. Other than the weapon choice both options are identical. This represents exactly the same flexibility as having one unit with a possibly upgrade to great weapons. Should there be a premium paid because there's two different options in the book, or only if there's one choice with an upgrade option?

They don't do that anymore, however. They did kind of in the past and you'll still see some units like that. Ironguts are just Bulls with GW and HA and the option of a banner. And they are incredibly more expensive.

But should there be a premium paid? Yes. If there was a book Ogre Kingdoms Basic and Ogre Kingdoms Advanced and the Basic army had NOTHING except Bulls and heroes and the Advanced was the current book, then the Bulls of the Basic book better be a lot cheaper than the Advanced because they have no other options--they would lose every battle against the Advanced list otherwise. A clear example of this is Ogres in WoC vs. Ogres in OK, Trolls in WoC vs. Trolls in O&G.

And if so, should the Empire pay a premium because there are options for Halberdiers, Spearmen and Swordsmen?

Part of the reason all those troops exist that are only fractionally different is because people have vast legacy armies around them and they aren't going to exclude them from the new rules. But yeah, when I see them and they are 5% different, that's pretty nonsensical. They could simply be one unit with options. But they don't exist because of balance reasons. If they were starting Empire from scratch, it would probably be just one unit.

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Okay, so there are two thoughts here:

1. A unit's ability to be equipped differently pre-game should reflect its cost in-game. It is a more flexible unit, and thus it is better, and it should cost more for those options.
Simple.

2. A unit's ability to be equipped differently pre-game should not reflect its cost in-game. It is no more flexible in-game than other units, and thus it should not cost more for the options it did not use.
Simple.

@Duke: #2 is obviously an incorrect line of thought, if we don't look at anything beyond the statement. I would wager, though, that Sebster (and in fact, all people everywhere always) have a line of reasoning that makes his statement something valid.
And I believe it is something like this:

A unit's ability to be equipped differently pre-game should be reflected in the overall content of the book it is in. It is a more flexible unit, and thus is more valuable to an army, and thus the army should have weaknesses or the other armies should have similar strengths to make up for this unit.
...Simple?

I'm going to agree with Sebster on this part. I don't think a unit of Chaos Warriors with halberds and the mark of Khorne should cost more because they could have taken shields and the mark of Tzeentch; you've got S5 guys with Frenzy, not guys with a 3+/5+. Their potential influences how good the army could be, not how good it is.
I'll take Sebster's example further: if I made Stormvermin an upgrade to Clanrats, would Clanrats need to cost more to reflect this flexibility? I don't think so. You're either paying for the upgrade, or you're not.
The job and shotgun examples are referring to the potential that those entities offer you "in-game". Your shotgun is not like a Chaos Warrior who could get a halberd, it's like a Warrior who actually has one. The gun that could be brought back to the shop and upgraded didn't cost more because of that potential to be upgraded, the upgrade has its own cost.

I think a game where you're paying for stuff you didn't take is a flawed one. That would essentially mean that armies with flexible units were playing with less points than other armies, because they have units that could be fielded differently next game.
I guess what I mean is, point-values should directly related to the impact the unit has on one specific game, and nothing else.
Flexible units make the army better, but I think that's one of those Big Picture balances you're so fond of. Warriors of Chaos have the best close combat fighters period, but they basically have no shooting. That's the level I think unit-flexibility fits into.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





This is a proposal for a NEW unit by a player. If we want to reorganize and rebalance ever unit and army you might have a point. But adding of a new unit to an existing army is a different deal.

If you add a cannon to Daemons it cannot cost the same as a cannon. Even though a cannon's cost is relatively standard.

That cannon would be priced a lot more because of the context of which it is in. Even if you never use it, it will still be more expensive because it makes the army overall (vastly) more adaptive.

Options have value whether you use them or not. It's why people get college educations and don't go into fields which they studied.

   
Made in au
Mighty Chosen Warrior of Chaos





Well, this interesting debate aside, I am satisfied that my foot knights are balanced

   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: