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.

 Thunderfrog wrote:

Melevolence wrote:
Since models no longer go by their old battlefield roles of 'core, special, rare' etc, I don't think using that comp system will work well. Especially for new players who don't know that lingo, since they won't own the books. Honestly, I think the easiest method is a wound system that determine what big beasties you can bring with you.

My proposed army system is:

Armies are composed of an agreed upon Would Pool, typically increments of 50. For every 50 Wounds, an army may contain one model with the Hero keyword, and one single model unit that has 10+ wounds. This comp increases by 1 for each type for every 50 wounds in your Wound Pool. For example, at 100 Wounds, you are allowed to take 2 Hero units, and 2 single model units that have 10+ wounds.

Edit: This allows each army at 50 Wounds (Smallest base game that allows hero units/big stuff) to be led by one hero and take a 'warbeast' with them if they so desire, though that eats up a lot of their wound total. It also allows for people to still bring things they want to field, without being too bonkers. If i own a giant, I can play him, but he's gunna chew up a lot of my Wounds in a 50 wound game, and I only get 1 so I better make him count, and my hero unit should be chosen to compliment my army choices as well with his command ability.

After having played more games I feel you are on the right track, but I don't think Hero's need to be limited. 12+ wounds on a model? Yes!

I've seen Nagash die to goblins and a spearchukka, killed a bloodthirster with 40 skeletons, and watched as generic heroes do very little.

If a guy wants to use 15 wounds for 3 wizards, let him.

I'd say ..

Play X wounds.
1 model per 50 wounds that has more than 12 wounds.
Models with a combined hit and wound of 10 or higher get 3 free wounds per 10 purchased.

Eh, I feel adding extra wounds just makes for more book keeping than is needed. I get trying to make the rank and file last a little longer but, I dunno if that's necessary.

I suppose not comping Heros could be a thing. Maybe just the Named heros? I dunno, just seemed like a way to help mitigate some of the silliness that some Hero units can give to their lesser peers, where those synergies can be expanded on at bigger wound caps. I still think 10+ wound models should be comped. 10 + wounds seems fair and keeps some of the big nasties at bay. If you have it at 12+, for example, I could have 5 units of Mangler Squigs. Not super competitive, but still tough to take out for some armies. A unit that can move 3D6, hits on 2+ and wounds on 3+ on it's own, and the ball and chain gobbos riding them hit hard too. 10 wounds each...pretty rough, and a bit much for a 50 point game, imo. So capping it at one 10+ wound unit at 50 points seems fair enough.

Edit: Of course, play testing is required before any solid facts can be had on the fairness or lack there of of this system.

Ok so for fluffy rules (e.g. Sigvald look in a mirror), they always work (you don't need to look in a mirror!).

For summoning it's simple, just use it to bring on units from reserve rather than summoning new units.

The main things we need to sort is army building.

I am thinking now the only way to balance it is through a points system and force org, which will not be easy.

0604854 wrote:
Ok so for fluffy rules (e.g. Sigvald look in a mirror), they always work (you don't need to look in a mirror!).

For summoning it's simple, just use it to bring on units from reserve rather than summoning new units.

The main things we need to sort is army building.

I am thinking now the only way to balance it is through a points system and force org, which will not be easy.

I don't think people need to go through so much trouble. Seriously, people are over thinking this.

I really think the easiest solution to army building is use a Wound Pool. 50 wound increments seems to be easiest to work with. At 50 wounds, you're allotted 1 Hero (under 10 wounds) and one of any one model unit with 10+ wounds as your restrictions. The rest of your wound pool can be filled with anything else. For every 50 points you add to the total Wound Pool, you're granted another hero, and another 10+ wound model. Starting at 150 Wounds, you can bring a Hero that has over 10 wounds if you desire. (The last rule is negotiable, and could arguably start at 100 Wounds if people want...just a base suggestion)

At 50 points (Smallest game), you can bring a big beasty, but it'll eat up a sizable chunk. Multi wound units will also eat up points too so it discourages spamming too many multi wound units lest you consume all your points and not have enough bodies. It allows people to play rank and file swarms, or play a couple elite squads. The more Wounds you agree on, the bigger and nastier armies can get.

Of course, that is just my first suggestion/idea. It should get play tests. But going through and trying to find point values that are universally agreed upon is insane. Just use their Wounds as their 'points' cost and get used to the mindset that games will be in the 100's of points and not thousands.

I have to say, although I was initially against using wounds as we don't really know whether or not it's actually balanced, it does seem far, far easier that trying to bring in some points values, whilst still retaining some semblance of balance. It can be used as a placeholder system anyway, until someone does come up with a decent points system or warscroll standardisation that's better.

In terms of Melevolence's suggestions above, I like it, but I'd perhaps allow two heroes per 50 wounds (since you'll probably want a combat hero and a wizard).

On another note, I had a test battle yesterday using two armies built from the Formations. The Battle Report will be going up later today but yes, the battle did seem very even.

 The Shadow wrote:
I have to say, although I was initially against using wounds as we don't really know whether or not it's actually balanced, it does seem far, far easier that trying to bring in some points values, whilst still retaining some semblance of balance. It can be used as a placeholder system anyway, until someone does come up with a decent points system or warscroll standardisation that's better.

In terms of Melevolence's suggestions above, I like it, but I'd perhaps allow two heroes per 50 wounds (since you'll probably want a combat hero and a wizard).

On another note, I had a test battle yesterday using two armies built from the Formations. The Battle Report will be going up later today but yes, the battle did seem very even.

Again, it's a simple place holder that could be tweaked. People can alter it any way they want. The reason I initially picked one hero is because it would ease temptation to pick two heros and run yourself short on other units. But, two heros is perfectly doable if people so choose.

I just find wounds easier to agree on. If people go about and make points, there will be no universal agreement. People will always argue that something is worth more or less than what the majority thinks, and will cause discontent overall. For small, tight knit groups, an agreement could be found no doubt. But not a universal agreement that would allow people from different playgroups/states to do pick up games using the fan-points system. I feel wounds are the greatest indicator right now of a model's power/potential.

With GW's poor ability to price units, at least that was official and there's no wiggle room to argue about the costs. you either pay the unit cost, or don't field it. It was 'official'. There will just be no 'right' answer with fan point costs.

Take a look at this, looks promising:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410903-Azyr-Comp-System&p=7487870#post7487870

That does look good.

Problem is you need a starting warscroll to compare all others to (the most powerful one) to find out x goblins = 1 bloodthirster

But then what do you do with the warscrolls that only allow 1 model?

The best way would be to find a formula, like wounds × save × attacks ×rend × movement...but make sense of course - to come up with a 'combat value' per model

You can by effective %

It takes time but its doable.

and "Special" rules can really ruin it. and numbers will be skewed still.

I wouldn't jack with it that much. Gobins and skeletons can do big horde damage in a hurry, especially with Command Trait bonuses.

The strength of the game is in its core rules, warscrolls which with a unit keep would seem balanced, and it's simplicity.

I would start really small, with a wound cap, a summoning clause, a limit on 10+ wound models, and if the lesser units are found really wanting badly, which I suspect they are, give them a handicap worth of free wounds.

I think with just that you can have a gem of a game.

0604854 wrote:
Take a look at this, looks promising:

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410903-Azyr-Comp-System&p=7487870#post7487870

Yeah, this does look pretty good. To clarify (perhaps posting on the wrong forum for that though), 1 hammerer scroll of 5 models is worth 1 point (so a scroll of 10 models would be 2 points) and the maximum refers the the maximum amount of models that can be in any one hammer unit?

Im really even waffling on limiting big units actually. Quote from a guy at the US Masters Website.

"What I think they have gotten backwards is the assumption that heroes and monsters are somehow more valuable than a big wad of troops with bows.

Really, in a game where you can target single models with impunity from three feet away with ranged attacks, especially when hitting and wounding grandma in a wheelchair equires the same rolls as hitting and wounding the last son of krypton, single models are not cost effective, from a wounds to offense ratio."

Made up a system for assigning points. Feel free to follow the link, or check out any of the other ones in proposed rules.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655480.page

Having played a fair few games now, I can safely say that summoning needs to be limited in some way.

I saw a player put down a single Slann, the opponent put down a small force, the Slann then proceeded to summon 3 units a turn for 3 turns, thoroughly overwhelming the opponent. There were similar events with Death and Chaos players.

Anyway, here are my suggestions to mitigate it:

Firstly - summoned units cannot then summon further units, ever.

Secondly - a model that can summon can only 'maintain' a number of summoned units equal to the number of spells that model can cast in their Hero phase. A Slann can 'maintain' 3 units, for example.

The summoning model, once it has summoned its maximum, cannot then summon more units unless the units it has summoned have either been destroyed or 'dismissed'. The summoning model can, in their hero phase, 'dismiss' a summoned unit and then summon a new unit. Said new unit cannot be the same type as the dismissed unit. 'Dismissed' units count towards models destroyed if they have suffered at least 50% casualties upon their dismissal. Since you dismiss the unit first, you cannot decide to undismiss a unit if you fail to summon a new unit, you just need to try again in the next turn.



What do you think? It allows the models that were clearly intended to summon armies to still do so, but there's an opportunity cost there as well.

I've played with the house rule that any given summon spell can only be successfully cast once. It worked pretty well. But this has an obvious problem of scaling very poorly as the size of the battle goes up or down.

0604854 wrote:
Take a look at this, looks promising:
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410903-Azyr-Comp-System&p=7487870#post7487870

Eh. The concept is good, and internal balance in a list is good. But it fails when you throw a horde army (beastmen/O&G) against an elite army (elves/chaos warriors).
For 1 point, you get 10 goblins or 10 thunderers. That's supposed to be balanced?
I like the idea of rating units on a simple 1 to 5 point cost, and getting x models per point, but the balance between lists is lacking.