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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
There are quite a few differences between SCGT and the GHB I think it is important to note. On the whole armies got smaller under GHB - my old 100 Pool List doesn't now fit into 2000 points, and yesterday I was listening to a Facehammer Podcast where one of them mentioned his 150 pool army had been particulary affected as it clocked in at 3800+ points.

Monsters are also more expensive under GHB (despite Auticus and Ninth lamenting the price of them still). The Heelanhammer team mentioned they constantly told GW they thought the prices were too high, especially with objective capturing being done on "models".

Other than that the similarities are there to be seen clearly. It was mentioned that when pointing for the GHB they had a spreadsheet that compared the cost of a warscroll across all the major comps (so no doubt you two were included), but SCGT was their benchmark and go-to.

It's the internet, I will exercise my right to complain! Loudly if needed!

But more seriously, I think the winning tourney lists tell us all we need to know about monster pricing in SCGT.

True true. It's obviously not just about the points but also about the comp too. In Clash it swung too far the other way with Monsters being unable to score at all and thus becoming much more unfavorable than a giant block of troops. GHB has a nice medium where they can score, but only count as one model in scenarios that rely on amount. When we see the winning lists at Warlords it will likely let us know where the meta is at with pure GHB.

I think one thing that is often left out of equation when talking about points is that they are wildly dependent of the scenarios and in some extent of the opponent.
In AoS the latter has less of an impact as the wound rolls are done against fixed number and the saves are affected in samy way with rending etc. and therefore there isn't similar mechanic as e.g. in 40k that in some match ups your weapons are next to useless and in some instances they are very good (like the whole ap mechanic in that game).
The scenario effect is however there in every game there is. Therefore with narrative scenarios the army lists should always be done for the specific scenario. In same way for matched play the scenarios and points should be a complete package as is the case with AoS. However I'm sure that there will be lots of events with own custom scenarios in which case the points will always be moren or less off than with the"official" scenarios.

In any case, getting the prices exactly balanced for a game as vast as this is an impossible mission.

It is impossible for perfect balance but I feel that the current GW/SCGT points could be tighter. A lot tighter.

I'm currently working a project that lets you show on a website the avg output, efficiency, actual wounds, defense efficiency and overall rating of every unit to compare armies.

http://www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AOS%20Stats.pdf

The efficiency scores are basically how many points you pay for each point of damage and how many points you pay per ACTUAL wound averaged out.

When I design systems I want the efficiency scores to be all as close to each other as they can.

Meaning its ok to have a damage output 5 unit and a 50 unit, so long as the points per damage remain close.

Going through the scrolls I've gone through the efficiencies are close for a lot, but the monsters can get really silly really quick with their efficiency scores... and this doesn't include mathing out abstract abilities which can make leader types even more efficient (but to be fair their raw out and defense are rarely efficient for their cost which is inflated to account for their abilities)

And indeed players who may not even be good with math are gravitating towards (here at least this is a major trend going on right now) armies that are very small, very compact, and loaded down with monsters and things like stormcast cav etc because its obvious you get a lot more bang for their buck.

Artillery pretty much across the board is horrible for what you pay for it.

EDIT
Now I will say that I appreciate with where they want to go with pointless play and points just being a loose structure. Thats exactly how I designed Azyr. However... the community default pretty much globally is to use matched play for nearly every type of game (at least in shops or public visible games) and as such when you create a system that has a lot of undercosted units, you are setting yourself up back to square 1 of the old whfb and 40k issue where you only see a tiny fraction of the game (the most undercosted for their points units).

IMO these need addressed regularly. Pandoras Box is already open at the store I go to and to try and incentivize people to use some more "normal" units other than the super efficient ones, our ladder championship will give extra points to B and C lists if they win their games. I don't know how successful that will be though.

I hear you. Like I said, my experience thus far was nearly enough to sour me on the game, but to be fair I also refuse to do it myself. My FEC is limited now but when I expand I want a horde of ghouls with some elites, not like min/max and stuff. I just wish people weren't so gung-ho about using points that are obviously not "plug and play"

I will say that the Matched Play scenarios help things, like the one with 4 objectives controlled by most models within 6" and the player who has all 4 wins immediately (I've had goblins steal this one out from the jaws of big monsters ) or the scenario where the army enters the battlefield piecemeal and the battleline units have to go first. It doesn't do enough to balance the scale but it does help.

I agree, the objectives do help a lot. One of the guys at my store who likes to run the stormcast cav army complained it wasn't fair because he didn't have enough models.

I was like "so take units that have more models"

And his response was "but they aren't as efficient, I shouldn't be punished for taking efficient units"

 auticus wrote:
I agree, the objectives do help a lot. One of the guys at my store who likes to run the stormcast cav army complained it wasn't fair because he didn't have enough models.

I was like "so take units that have more models"

And his response was "but they aren't as efficient, I shouldn't be punished for taking efficient units"

But it's okay to punish people for taking not-as-efficient units

Maybe that was my issue, I played a special scenario for the summer campaign that had me at a disadvantage. Maybe the final week scenario will be better?

I think to that mindset its not "punishment" to take not efficient units because someone actively chooses to do so.

 auticus wrote:
I agree, the objectives do help a lot. One of the guys at my store who likes to run the stormcast cav army complained it wasn't fair because he didn't have enough models.

I was like "so take units that have more models"

And his response was "but they aren't as efficient, I shouldn't be punished for taking efficient units"

Wow. Just... wow. I feel sorry for you dude, you've mentioned your local meta was bad but I had no idea.

Its not everybody. There are a lot of guys that will gladly scale up or down for the type of event but there are also a lot of guys that will only do the A list game and who will complain if you hamper that in anyway.

Surely they see if the scenario works against their list it can no longer be considered an "A-list" or the most efficient?

That was my first thought - 'efficient' is dependent on input vs output, and someone is measuring output wrong if they are ignoring the ability to actually win.

I think Auticus may be making a rod for his own back if he does publish a list like he says; it is perpetuating the idea that efficiency is a clear cut measure without any context needed. There is always the context of the scenario and what you need to do to win (plus other factors).

I haven't gone looking at that list, but apart from scenario does that list cover things like synergy or type of target. Which is better - 2 mortal wounds or 4 normal wounds or 3 at rend -2? It depends heavily on what you face making measuring 'efficiency' a tad difficult. Does it consider synergy bonuses; Bloodreavers are 'meh' alone but almost the ultimate glass cannon with an army built around them. With between 1 - 6 attacks depending on what you have and the situation at that point in time what are you measuring?

All that is one of the reasons I dislike points. Points are always highly specific to one 'scenario' (usually pitched battle style), but they then get used all the time, and get complaints when they don't provide the balance that they were not supposed to provide.

 Bottle wrote:
Surely they see if the scenario works against their list it can no longer be considered an "A-list" or the most efficient?

When they can dictate the scenarios that they play in, it is the most efficient (kill games).

The list is a factor of your output which includes mortal wounds, how well you wound no saves, 6+, 5+,4+,3+ (taking your rend into account) etc. Abstract abiliites cannot be mathed.

If I put mystic shield on a unit of 5 guys that have a 5+ save normally, thats not as good as putting it on 20 guys that normally have a 4+ save, for example.

However the website will let you edit that to see potential values vs starting values.

Mystic shield should be equally good no matter what is the starting save? Of course the number of effected models has impact. Same with rend, you'll get 16% better chance of killing something by each point of rend. Of course if the save "runs out" before your rend, it's worse. That's why the AoS save system is far superior to 40k system.

No mystic shield would not just as good.

In the case where you put it on 5 guys with a 5+ save you are giving them a 4+ save, and thus extending their actual wounds from 6.65 wounds to 7.5 wounds.

A unit of 20 guys with a 4+ getting it cast on them takes their wounds from 30 to 33.4.

If the unit of 20 guys has 2 wounds a piece then they go from 60 wounds to 66.8 wounds.

So while its not major there is more utility in casting the spell on larger units and units with more wounds, which is why you can't put a math formula on it because how it is used is going to be different every time. You'd have to have entries for a wizard that take mystic shield into effect for a range of wounds and a range of saves. While I *could* do that... that would take a very very long time to do for each ability and each spell that does things like this. It would need a modeling engine created that takes every unit input and then applies the spell to every one of those units and comes up with a mean score. Thats something I can look at doing later. For right now that was going to be done by the website edit function.

The sheet I linked already takes rend into consideration. It finds the average against no save all the way through a 2+ save.

Therefore the score of a 4+/4+ 0 rend 1 damage will be less than the same model with a 4+/4+ 1 rend 1 damage overall.

As I said, if you put it into a bigger unit it has more effect, but if you put it to a unit of 20 guys with 5+ save it has exactly same effect as if you put it to a unit of 20 guys with 4+ save. Of course it has some effect how good the unit is otherwise and where it is on the table, but resilience wise you get the same benefit.

Then you go back to - i have a roster it has:

monster with 10 wounds and a 4+
unit of 10 guys with 2 wounds each with a 4+
unit of 20 guys with 1 wound each and a 5+
unit of 5 guys with 3 wounds each and a 3+
unit of 5 guys with 1 wound each and a 5+
hero with 5 wounds and a 4+ save

Putting mystic shield on each of these units is going to have differing effects. There is no way to get one solid score for the effects of mystic shield when its effects vary from entity to entity receiving it.

Therefore you would need to cross input every unit in the game that can receive mystic shield, to include their min and max model values and then come up with an average.

unit with 5 models
unit with 10 models
unit with 15 models
unit with 20 models
unit with 25 models
unit with 30 models

Rinse repeat for every unit in the game. Find average.

Now do that for every ability and spell

That can be done, but that is beyond the scope of what i am doing at present on that file.

I didn't realise you were referring to an actual efficiency list you had constructed and thought it was just the players "list" and what they considered efficient.

Personally I will never play a straight up kill game again. I am working through the Pitched Battle scenarios now and after that I will move onto the narrative battleplans with points added in. Giving a third more in the place of where it says "a third more models" in for example the Relic.

Should be fun

Interesting point on points being great for "pitched battles". Problem is that often is the default then; nobody wants to play a scenario, however fun/thematic, where they are for example holed in up in the middle of the board in a "Last Stand" type scenario. But those can be fun, just not suitable (IMHO) for "turn up and play" games.

This is really making me want to discuss a campaign that focuses on a story/fun/interesting games with the regulars at my GW shop, instead of just "Anyone want a game?" kind of things. I just doubt that people would be interested when I said that A) It would not use points and B) It could/will use Battleplans in various sources depending on the narrative. But it sounds like it would be fun (in my head a least) damnit!

 Bottle wrote:
I didn't realise you were referring to an actual efficiency list you had constructed and thought it was just the players "list" and what they considered efficient.

Personally I will never play a straight up kill game again. I am working through the Pitched Battle scenarios now and after that I will move onto the narrative battleplans with points added in. Giving a third more in the place of where it says "a third more models" in for example the Relic.

Should be fun

My list is actual efficiency. What the player I was talking about was just player-speak.

My area is very comfortable with old school battleline which is as you know just simply kill the other side and get points, so that is what quite a few fellows push very hard to play since that is what they buy their models specifically for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Interesting point on points being great for "pitched battles". Problem is that often is the default then; nobody wants to play a scenario, however fun/thematic, where they are for example holed in up in the middle of the board in a "Last Stand" type scenario. But those can be fun, just not suitable (IMHO) for "turn up and play" games.

This is really making me want to discuss a campaign that focuses on a story/fun/interesting games with the regulars at my GW shop, instead of just "Anyone want a game?" kind of things. I just doubt that people would be interested when I said that A) It would not use points and B) It could/will use Battleplans in various sources depending on the narrative. But it sounds like it would be fun (in my head a least) damnit!

You will be surprised. Your first public campaign will not have much interest and can be discouraging. But as you complete campaigns and people see that they complete you will find more like-minded people jump on as the months and years go on.

I love the pitched battle scenarios from the GHB, they mix up the game a bit yet are simple enough to be easy for 'pick up and play'. Before those the question was "are we going to do a scenario?" now its assumed we roll on the chart to see what scenario we'll be playing.