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.

Recently I've heard several people gauge a unit's worth by whether or not it makes it's points back often enough to take. This mindset has been criticized as being "too 4th edition", noting that a unit is worth more than the stuff it can kill.

I submit that it is not, and that making it's points back is a perfectly good measure of how good something is, however, it does need a little tweaking.

Let's say a unit costs 300 points. Under the old "make your points back" mentality, this unit would only be good if it could kill 300 points worth of something else on a regular basis. However, this fails to take into account many strategic variables. I submit the following measure to see whether or not a unit makes it's points back:

Points worth of units killed that eventually resulted in a kill-point = A
Points worth of units that shot at it or engaged it in close combat per turn= B

A + (B/6) = Points the unit made back.
But wait, what about how valuable the unit is for KPs, and whether or not it is scoring?

If a unit held an objective uncontested at the end of the game, without help, it made it's points back. A unit of plague marines that weathered bolter, missile, and flamer for 6 turns and still held the objective made it's points back.

If a unit contested an objective, count all the points the enemy unit on the objective is worth, and add this to the unit's score. Your 50 point crisis suit stood on an objective with 500 points worth of chaos marines at the end of the game? He made his points back 10 times over.

If a unit is worth more than 1 KP, divide the number of KPs it gave up by it's total score (so Vulkan +5 TH/SS termies made 800 points back, but died at the end of the game, so divide it by 2), note that this only matters in KP missions.

So in the end, let's say a 300 point unit killed 30 imperial guardsmen for 150 points, it was shot at for 2 turns by a 200 point leman russ for another 60 points, and at the end of the game contested an objective held by 20 imperial guardmen, for another 100 points, so in the end this unit made 310 points, and made it's points back.

C&C welcome. I hope this wasn't too confusing.

I think "making it's point back" has always been more useful when you think of it the terms of "has this unit made an impact on the game equal to or greater than the percentage of points in the game (yours and theirs) it has taken up?", instead of "has the unit killed as many points as it cost?".

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think "making it's point back" has always been more useful when you think of it the terms of "has this unit made an impact on the game equal to or greater than the percentage of points in the game (yours and theirs) it has taken up?"

Which is what i'm attempting to do, mathematically.

Canonness Rory wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think "making it's point back" has always been more useful when you think of it the terms of "has this unit made an impact on the game equal to or greater than the percentage of points in the game (yours and theirs) it has taken up?"

Which is what i'm attempting to do, mathematically.

The math looks really interesting.
But to gauge its value you have to make several tests with the unit and then take statistical measures.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I think "making it's point back" has always been more useful when you think of it the terms of "has this unit made an impact on the game equal to or greater than the percentage of points in the game (yours and theirs) it has taken up?", instead of "has the unit killed as many points as it cost?".

This.

Here is a prime example.

Eldrad will rarely kill enough things by himself that equal his cost in points.

Does Eldrad earn his points back?

You bet....every single time.

Alerian wrote:
Eldrad will rarely kill enough things by himself that equal his cost in points.

Depends...he does have a witchblade power weapon thingy.

whitedragon wrote:

Alerian wrote:
Eldrad will rarely kill enough things by himself that equal his cost in points.

Depends...he does have a witchblade power weapon thingy.

But he is in essence a supporting character.

He could make his points back through use of his Divination ability alone.

If all your units but one die a horrible death without killing anything, and you still win..... Your army "made it's points back".

I could care less if something is "4th edition mentality" if it helps me build a proper army. I find judging units that have a prime function of killing things by how well they will kill other things in battle to be a pretty good method.

Lordhat wrote:If all your units but one die a horrible death without killing anything, and you still win..... Your army "made it's points back".

Or the one unit made its points back and the rest of the army was a waste.

Alerian wrote:Here is a prime example.

Eldrad will rarely kill enough things by himself that equal his cost in points.

Does Eldrad earn his points back?

You bet....every single time.

He should get credit for all units killed because of Doom, all units shot at that were fortuned, etc. etc.

Being a warhammer player I absolutely hate this mentality. At no point any time in any game of warhammer has this thought process ever led to a win.

For 40k, I find myself thinking with this thought process in the attempt to justify some units. The problem is the disconnect between devious tactical ability, and the giant equalizer that is a las-cannon to the forehead.

In Warhammer if I outplay my opponnent, and get a unit on the flank he's toast. In 40k if I outplay my opponent, he can turn all his guns on me and wreck whatever I did to outplay him. When this proposition is presented to anyone, they begin to think in terms of each unit as it's own autonomous entity that must perform and dole out enough damage to justify having showed up on the field.

But I think that the only time that "points made back" is worth it, is during kill points missions, but even then, if a unit gets 3 kill points from 300 points worth of units, but the unit itself was 300 points... did it make its points back, or did it do better than make its points back?

... Working out if a unit will earn its points back is a good thing but most people only take it as far as killing enough to earn those points back. I take it further

I often use a large squad of wraithguard they rarely kill the points I pay for them (+375pts). However they attract fire away from many of my more frail units. In doing this they are also earning their points back by letting the rest of my army rack up damage.

I think that the how many points the unit can "get back" is very important but another thing to think about is how much abuse a unit can take like TRI said .

For example a good sized unit of death guard or plaguebearers ect... how many points of shooting does it take to shoot those guys down a $#%&ing lot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is why Nidzilla was so broken during 4th ED. Every TMC in the army could take a beating and still earn at least 40-60% of its points back every turn.

I have the perfect example for this, its from a planetstrike game, but it fits perfectly. A SAG mek and barebones grot mob are taken down to the mek, the runtherd, and A grot by the pre game large templates which name escapes me at the moment. The entire enemy army comes in on the board edge right next to them, and proceeds to fire everything they possibly can into the 3 models causing exactly 1 wound wich is put on the mek meaning that an entire army just shot at 3 models, and failed to do so much as cause a morale test. They didn't cause a single wound, but they were absolutely worth their points.

The math I suggested reflects situations like that.

Ragnar4 wrote:
In 40k if I outplay my opponent, he can turn all his guns on me and wreck whatever I did to outplay him.

I believe in this case you failed to 'outplay' your opponent.

Ragnar4 wrote:
In Warhammer if I outplay my opponnent, and get a unit on the flank he's toast.

You haven't played enough luckhammer....I mean warhammer then, have you?

I charged an opponent's flank with a unit of 4 dragon ogres, lost combat, ran away and was chased down. The unit I charged was saurus warriors, with no characters. And I consistently lose fights between my chaos warriors and skaven clanrats.

.....though three warriors in the flank chased down three different units in another game. Not even enough to break ranks, and I slaughtered them. Odd...

Anyway still, flanking in fantasy is hardly a guarantee. I feel that with fewer dice rolled, fantasy way way way more often than 40k comes down to luck of the dice. Enough dice are rolled in 40k so that statistics can really come into play, and certain units that are good at doing certain things really show it. You can expect a unit to perform how you like it to, and if they're shot at by a weapon the opponent is expecting to kill you easily, it's likely that they will. It's up to you to put them in a transport or out of harm's way.

Snikrot and his Kommandos are another great example of this.
I play them in every game with my boyz, and rarely have they ever "made their points back". At best they will hit one or two units and get wiped out by the rest of my opponent's force.

What they do, however, is really push the psychological game on my opponent. When I'm playing an IG player, they will put all their tanks 13" from the board edge to avoid getting hit in the rear -- putting them much closer to my mobs with PK nobs. They cause my opponent to turn his forces on one little squad and ignore the rest of my horde coming down his throat. They can contest a vital objective late in the game if I rolled poorly on reserves.

Snikrot is great, and I take him every time.

The importance of a unit making it's points back goes up with the liklihood of that unit being destroyed. Fragile units are far less likely to hold or contest objectives and are more likely to give up kill points. to make up for this inability to actually perform game winning actions, a unit has to do something else: either distract, support, or kill.

Nobody cares if a landraider, or eldrad, or a hive tyrant with guard make their points back, because it's assumed that they won't die, and thus will help you win the game. For things like IG stormtroopers, landspeeders, etc. it's unlikley that that unit will be around come turn 7. It's ability to kill more stuff than it costs is the only reason to include it.

My IG platoons never win their points back, but I still take them for their ability hold objectives. Sly Marbo dies in nearly every game, but I still take him too. Different units have different purposes. If people only took units that won their points back, would anybody ever take tactical squads?

Spellbound wrote:

Ragnar4 wrote:
In Warhammer if I outplay my opponnent, and get a unit on the flank he's toast.

You haven't played enough luckhammer....I mean warhammer then, have you?

I charged an opponent's flank with a unit of 4 dragon ogres, lost combat, ran away and was chased down. The unit I charged was saurus warriors, with no characters. And I consistently lose fights between my chaos warriors and skaven clanrats.

.....though three warriors in the flank chased down three different units in another game. Not even enough to break ranks, and I slaughtered them. Odd...

LOL

No seriously LOL.

You need to work out that combat 100 times and come back to me with how often your dragon ogres win.

4 dragon ogres on the flank of 20 saurus warriors. I don't remember if they have 4 attacks per or 3 attacks per, so we'll work it out.
16 attacks, 10 hits, 8 wounds no saves (great weapons). After that combat you win by 8. He runs unless he rolls double ones. (remember he doesn't get ranks, because you're on the flank, so all he gets is outnumber-banner.)

if you have 12 attacks with greatweapons, that's 9 hits, and 7 ish wounds, again, this time a 2 or a 3 will keep him around. Flank charging is not a guarantee, but it's as close as you can get if you break ranks.

As for how much Luckhammer I've played, I've easily played over a thousand games in my life time, and I have a few best general awards at the Seattle GT. Which doesn't mean much, but it's got to mean something for this convo.

In games where victory points are primary, then it is vaild to say will a unit make it's points back. There were few occasions where a unit was responsible for taking out a very specific enemy unit that might rampage through your army. Such as something needed to take out a Bloodthirster or C'tan.

In 5th edition I don't think it is valid to ask if a unit will make it's points back rather than will the unit accomplish what I want it to do for the cheapest cost and highest success rate. If it is an objective mission I don't need a 150pt unit to take out the 150pt enemy scoring unit. I need anything, be it 450pts to make sure the enemy doesn't get a scoring unit to this objective.

DarthDiggler wrote:In games where victory points are primary, then it is vaild to say will a unit make it's points back. There were few occasions where a unit was responsible for taking out a very specific enemy unit that might rampage through your army. Such as something needed to take out a Bloodthirster or C'tan.

In 5th edition I don't think it is valid to ask if a unit will make it's points back rather than will the unit accomplish what I want it to do for the cheapest cost and highest success rate. If it is an objective mission I don't need a 150pt unit to take out the 150pt enemy scoring unit. I need anything, be it 450pts to make sure the enemy doesn't get a scoring unit to this objective.

Even in VP games, I don't think its so cut and dry.
Take the melta-bomb scout biker charge. (Scout bike turbo-boosts 24" in the scout move, moves 12" and plants a melta bomb before the opponent has a turn) If they manage to come in and destroy the death company's rhino did they earn their points back? The rhino was only 35 points, yet now the death company will be forced to run to the battle, greatly lowering their mobility and turns to destroy the enemy?

labmouse42 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:In games where victory points are primary, then it is vaild to say will a unit make it's points back. There were few occasions where a unit was responsible for taking out a very specific enemy unit that might rampage through your army. Such as something needed to take out a Bloodthirster or C'tan.

In 5th edition I don't think it is valid to ask if a unit will make it's points back rather than will the unit accomplish what I want it to do for the cheapest cost and highest success rate. If it is an objective mission I don't need a 150pt unit to take out the 150pt enemy scoring unit. I need anything, be it 450pts to make sure the enemy doesn't get a scoring unit to this objective.

Even in VP games, I don't think its so cut and dry.
Take the melta-bomb scout biker charge. (Scout bike turbo-boosts 24" in the scout move, moves 12" and plants a melta bomb before the opponent has a turn) If they manage to come in and destroy the death company's rhino did they earn their points back? The rhino was only 35 points, yet now the death company will be forced to run to the battle, greatly lowering their mobility and turns to destroy the enemy?

I agree 100%

'Making back their points' has to be taken with a pinch of salt. It doesnt actually mean that a unit has to earn more than its points back to be cost effective.
Some units will barely kill a thing but will cause your opponent to change his entire plan so that he doesnt have to fight them, such as plague marines sitting on objectives.
Whereas sometimes killing more points than the model is worth will not mean its gained its points back, such as Abbadon killing 300 points of guard or orks buy himself, other than spending his time hunting down commanders or elite units.

Ragnar4 wrote:
As for how much Luckhammer I've played, I've easily played over a thousand games in my life time, and I have a few best general awards at the Seattle GT. Which doesn't mean much, but it's got to mean something for this convo.

Yeah, it means you're REALLY lucky! Not that you aren't a good player. You have to be, to get your forces into good positions and such. But it also means that you never got horribly screwed by a good position [see flanking dragon ogres] screwing you horribly [see fleeing, chased down dragon ogres exposing the flank of marauders with sorceror that I thought were pretty darn well safe, seeing as how I was about to obliterate the unit in the center]. Never having everything fall completely apart because of one bad round of rolling despite optimal positioning is luck

The fact that it affects my odds, sure I won't deny that. Dragon ogres in the flank should win, I'll grant you that. But on the off chance they lose, their already average leadership being penalized even further punishes your bad luck AGAIN. Bad luck not utterly destroying the unit? Fine. Bad luck making it so not only did you destroy the unit but that the odds are against you even staying around? A bit annoying.

That full unit charging into the flank gets only 16 dice. Against small-based units it gets even fewer. One reason I like 40k is that a basic infantry unit charging into combat rolls about that many dice. An actual close combat squad gets even more! It brings the odds into more expected ranges.

Though 5th edition is similar to fantasy now in that should you have a bad round, you'll be horribly punished for it. But there's more options for rerolls, stubborn, fearlessness, etc around.

The implication of the phrase 'making points back' is that the unit killed an models equal to its own points. Although the flormula the OP suggested is a good start for evaluating how units did in battle, its not exactly 'making their points back', so I think that the two have to be clarified.

In 5th it doesnt matter if your units make their points back or not, what matters is that they did in the game, as the OP said. If all your 400pt terminator squad did all game was to shoot a IG squad off the table, but that Ig squad was sat on an objective, then they did their job. On the other hand, if they blow up four leman russ' but you lose on objectives, they didnt. Points also dont matter in KP missions, where points have absolutely no effect on KP. You just need to kill as many units as possible.

So I do think its a 4th edition mentality that should be left behind. Even in 4th it wasnt a good way to think about things because some models can have a huge effect on the game, but kill relatively little themselves, as others have mentioned.