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.

I'm checking the skaven v0.5 and the price for the clan rat seems off.

10 Clanrats for 40 pts
20 Clanrats for 50 pts
30 Clanrats for 60 pts

Shouldn't it be
10 Clanrats for 40 pts
20 Clanrats for 100 pts
30 Clanrats for 180 pts
?

Thanks Araknir, your assumption is correct! I wrote the wrong numbers for 20 and 30

That leads me to a something we should discuss here before I continue the work:

As it is now for clanrats in the Skaven list, every model in the unit goes up 1p if you buy 20-30 models, and then every model goes up 2p for 30+ models.
This means that you pay very much for the 20th and 30th model, compared to the 19th and 29th. I have had suggestions that its better we do it like the early drafts where you only pay extra for the models that actually provides the bonus, i.e. the models above 20 and 30 models, and not for the first 19 models.

Example:
You buy 19 clanrats, for 19*4= 76p
You then decide you want another clanrat...suddenly you have to pay 24p for that model, since your unit becomes 20 models strong and therefor costs 100p. But as soon as the 20th model dies, you lose the benefit of +1 to hit. You will probably never buy 20 models for that reason, but always go abit higher like 25 models.

My question is, would it be better that we went back and just made each model above 20 cost 5p, and each model above 30 cost 6p since the bonus goes away when those extra models are killed - or do we keep it as is now and make you pay extra for all models in the unit once you hit 20/30 models, since you do get the benefits for the whole unit?

Since I must change my typo for the Skaven list, I will change it to whatever we decide on this topic. And keep it that way for the other army lists as well.

Regarding that, the question is not paying for the model providing the bonus, but paying for the model benefiting from the bonus. It should be the same as with monster, when you pay for the peak performance (without any wound inflicted)

The first 19 models may not provide the bonus, but they get the full benefit of it.

They do get the bonus, but only for a single wound. If the other person has any shooting or magic, it would be the most obvious target ever. For that reason, you would never and should never buy only 20 or 30 models for that price. What could be done however would be to increase the point cost more from nr 20 and 30. So 1-19 clan rats cost 5 each and 20-29 cost 7 each and so on. Thats a thought at least.

How about a compromise - They will not go up for the entire unit, but will be more expensive / model above 20 and 30. So instead of paying 5p / model above 20, you pay 6p (or even 7p?). That way, if you only want 20 models you don't have to pay 24p for that last one, but if you want to go extreme, like 50 models, you will end up paying the same points anyway (300p for 50 models either system). I think we want to make people think twice about extreme numbers, and this might be a better apporach.

We can discuss this more for v0.6 - I'll go with the compromise until we have decided something.

As experiencing the Skaven blob first hand . My thoughts are that for game mechanics no unit should go over 30. I think it becomes cumbersome and messy. I like the idea of paying more per model if you go over 20. I think we should keep an eye to limit any type of stacking for the game itself as that will lead to someone finding a way to break the game. After all should clan rats be whacking out monstrous creatures and special characters by wounding on a 2 ? Just doesn't feel right.

Also too that netting is making a minus 1 to hit in a melee centric game too. Another reason to up the costs and limit the size of the unit. Does it make sense to have 30 something or 40 clan rats wounding on 2's and making the opponent a minus 1 to hit? Add in a command ability exempting them from battleshock and it can get wonky.

I do agree that wounding on a 2+ is pretty powerful, but you have to remember that if this unit loses one model that gets changed to a 3+. Also chances are you wont be able to get that many to hit.

If you give them all 1" attack weapons then I would guess only 10-15 will be able to get into the combat. If you give them 2" attack weapon probably around 20-25. But 5+ really lowers the amount of actual attacks going at you without rend.

Good points , that`s why I think we should limit the units to 30 models. Otherwise the game mechanics could become cumbersome and clunky.

I agree. Limit units to 30 models. If we find this to be underwhelming we could up it to 35.

Honestly I do not agree there : why put a limitation. If it is too cluncky people will stop playing with large units.
As I said before, the less house rules there is, the more the point system can be used in a general environement. Putting an artificial limit on the unit size makes some units rules less relevent.

As for the price of "big" units, I'll stay with the same opinion.

The units should be priced at their peak performance, because there are a lot of way to make sure they keep performing at this level for a significant time.

Otherwise, monster should be priced accordingly to their full profile and variable (star) stats, should take into account the decreased stats when wounded.

Here we are in exactely the same situation : the "unit" loose efficiency when suffering wounds. Why should the two be handled differently ?

I too am hesitant about adding another limitation unless we see it being truly abused after v0.5. I think we can handle this by increasing points cost instead, it can be tweaked until we find a good balance without putting a max size limit in the general comp.

For example, a unit of 50 night goblins with netters for around 175p is a no brainer, as they can soak up dmg with the General nearby and put out hurt on 2+ until they take 21 casualties.
The same unit for 500p might not be that attractive. We need to find out the magic number in points to make people actively think before including something in their list.

This, coupled with scenario limitations, will be enough for now I believe. In Capture, I forgot to add that one unit can only claim one objective. There is no use for a large unit spreading out to claim more than one. Will update that later today!

In Kill Points, it can become a problem, but the unit will be worth more on the other hand, and taking out the general will make it so much easier to battleshock the goblins or similar to death.

In the final scenario, not published yet, you must have your entire unit within the objective zone, which means severe limits to a large unit's ability to score.

A couple thoughts , anyone finding a way to get a mass of goblins to wound on a 2+ will always do so. No matter how messy it makes the game to play. But I do get the reasoning behind trying not to put too many limitations into the game.

Perhaps Attila had a good idea with changing the points for the more you get. Maybe 1-19 is 3 ppm . 20-29 is 6 ppm . 30-39 9 ppm. This is just an example not meant to be binding for the comp. Also say nets could be 15 ppm regardless of unit size? Again another example.

I do think that the only way too limit abuse will be to up the points for a larger unit. Remember we are trying to make a system that will work for tournaments , which means people will try to mid max and break the system to their advantage . So we need to be mindful of limiting abuse while not making the game overly restrictive and staying as close to the original rules as possible.

Yeah, I believe that since we make the points, we really have the power to make or break any unit in the game without placing a hard limit on it. I will make each 0.5 army lists this way and we can take it from there...the cost will likely not be perfect this first try, but we'll get a feeling for the system at least.

I'll make Orcs & Goblins my next list to update to 0.5, going to be interesting to check them gobbos out again

Also, Vampire Counts has been updated to 0.5 today and can be found on the blog as usual

HalfBlood wrote:
Hopefully they can come up with an FAQ and address these questions.

It is clearly stated in the rules. "to cleave through more than one opponent in a single blow."
So a 2dmg attack would kill 2 models. This is that the attacks are powerfull enough to kill several in a blow. Like one sweep of the hammer of a retributor slams 2 clanrats to paste.

Grave-guard at 65 for 5 and storm-vermin at 100 for 10! what plane of existence are you living on?, your interpretation would of been valid under 8th edition but in AoS the vermin are vastly superior...i suggest you look again.

How very rude of you. And not very constructive to boot. How about you yourself go look at their respective bravery stats and get back to us with that i formation. One single casualty can be catastrophic for stormvermin. Grave guard need to lose 6 for the same effect to occur. When you have a criticism of any kind, please remember to bring some kind of alternative solution instead of just yelling at the internet for not doing the work for you

Hettar wrote:
Grave-guard at 65 for 5 and storm-vermin at 100 for 10! what plane of existence are you living on?, your interpretation would of been valid under 8th edition but in AoS the vermin are vastly superior...i suggest you look again.

Let's test that "Vermin vastly superior" with numbers:

STATS:
Vermin moves 2" further.
Same save.
GG has 5 higher bravery!
Same amount of wounds.
Vermin weapons have +1" range.

Now let's test the damage output:
First, the Vermin does not outnumber their opponent. They will do:
Against 6+ armour: 0,67 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,55 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,45 damage

If they outnumber their enemy:
Against 6+ armour: 0,90 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,75 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,60 damage

Now, let's check the Grave Guard:
Against 6+ armour: 1,12 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,93 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,75 damage

Even when they are at their best advantage, against lesser number foe, the Vermin STILL underperforms vs a unit of Grave Guard.

So, if you consider 2" better move and 1" better range of Vermin vastly superior to 5 more bravery and approximately 43% more damage, you are right. But I don't agree, and I'm not sure many will

However, that said - we don't know for sure if anything has the perfect points to them before we do plenty of playtesting.

Hi, All!
New guy to this thread. I was making my own spreadsheet when I found your numbers and they seem to match mine pretty closely, so I've abandoned my project to jump on board here and hopefully help with ideas and playtesting.

My group largely plays 40k and Malifaux, but have been on the verge of starting Fantasy for some time. To this end, we have the AoS starter set, some High Elves, tons of Daemons, some WoC, some O&G, plus some Ogres and Skaven. Hope to start play testing your points this week.

So far, I like everything you've done. I am particularly concerned about summoning and have posted my thoughts about it on the other rules thread.

For this thread, I've just read through everything. Great ideas! Great work! As to external vs internal balance, as long as your algorithm for base points includes both percentage to damage in melee and range and percentage to save compared to models wounds, then external balance should be pretty spot on as long as abilities can be correctly accounted for, which was the key issue I was having in my own spreadsheet. As you've explained, as long as the abilities have something to do with a dice roll, you can adjust them based upon the percentage effected. That's what I was doing, but it's a lot of work, so kudos to you all for doing it! And again, well done.

Internal balance is more on GW's terms, since they are putting out the WarScrolls. We are just giving them points costs. While I agree that Internal balance is important, I also agree with those of you who think we shouldn't modify the actual rules/WarScrolls more than absolutely necessary. With that in mind, Internal balance, other than shifting our points values some, is going to be "harder" to accomplish, but not something we shouldn't discuss, obviously.

Speaking of the clan rat issue, I think Attilla's solution of upping points cost per model above the threshold (i.e. 20-29 costs more than 1-19) is a great idea and will balance out most of the horde issues, especially if we play with objectives and the scenarios that you've proposed. I don't think we should limit unit size if we don't have to. Seeing as the higher the models in the unit, the more costs the unit will be at an exponential rate, if we use Attilla's proposed fix, which I support, this should balance itself out. As soon as that general buffing that horde to make them immune to battleshock dies, then that horde starts taking massive causalities. I saw a thirty rat unit lose 15 models to battleshock just yesterday, when 10 High Elve Swordsmasters stomped them. So, in theory, I think you've got most horde armies under control using this method, though more playtesting, as always, will show for certain.

The issue then becomes Zombies, which were brought up earlier. Since they can merge units, we might have to adjust them separately. So whereas the rats cost more once we reach a certain number, perhaps Zombies should be treated more as Monsters, as in we should always assume they are getting the maximum benefit even if they are a small unit, since your opponent could start with a bunch of small (under-costed under the rat point method) units and then merge them all turn one to make a massive awesome unit for the cheap. Does that make sense?

Thanks again for all you guys are doing. I think this is the best balancing I've seen so far. Also, the website and downloads and presentation is all really solid and easy to use. The discussion here is great. I hope it keeps up. I'll try to add anything I can to it when possible, and once my group starts play testing, I'll try to add in my thoughts from games too.

If you need any help on the algorithm front also, I'd be interested in having a look. I had a spreadsheet myself and had some ideas about bravery similar to your own also. Great great work! Glad that we can now start playing AoS in at least some sort of balanced form instead of the ridiculous proposals that we balance games based upon wounds or model count or just using scenarios. Love the models. Love that the rules are free. Now we just need the points, which you all are giving us, also, for free. Thanks for all the work and time you've all put in.

@Attilla

Definitely liking the rules 2.0v. It's more eye appealing.

I am getting in a game with my Daemons tomorrow. I will let you know how it goes. Going to randomize a scenario.

Attilla wrote:

Hettar wrote:
Grave-guard at 65 for 5 and storm-vermin at 100 for 10! what plane of existence are you living on?, your interpretation would of been valid under 8th edition but in AoS the vermin are vastly superior...i suggest you look again.

Let's test that "Vermin vastly superior" with numbers:

STATS:
Vermin moves 2" further.
Same save.
GG has 5 higher bravery!
Same amount of wounds.
Vermin weapons have +1" range.

Now let's test the damage output:
First, the Vermin does not outnumber their opponent. They will do:
Against 6+ armour: 0,67 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,55 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,45 damage

If they outnumber their enemy:
Against 6+ armour: 0,90 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,75 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,60 damage

Now, let's check the Grave Guard:
Against 6+ armour: 1,12 damage
Against 5+ armour: 0,93 damage
Against 4+ armour: 0,75 damage

Even when they are at their best advantage, against lesser number foe, the Vermin STILL underperforms vs a unit of Grave Guard.

So, if you consider 2" better move and 1" better range of Vermin vastly superior to 5 more bravery and approximately 43% more damage, you are right. But I don't agree, and I'm not sure many will

However, that said - we don't know for sure if anything has the perfect points to them before we do plenty of playtesting.

I took a look at the Grave Guard and Stormvermin in my system too. Absolute numbers don't mean much, but mine has GG at 18pts for a basic model with Wight Blade/Crypt Shield, and 15pts for Stormvermin (16 with clanshields). I "penalise" the slower movement of the GG (maybe not enough!), but even so I can't see how stormvermin are castly superior.

Snapshot wrote:I took a look at the Grave Guard and Stormvermin in my system too. Absolute numbers don't mean much, but mine has GG at 18pts for a basic model with Wight Blade/Crypt Shield, and 15pts for Stormvermin (16 with clanshields). I "penalise" the slower movement of the GG (maybe not enough!), but even so I can't see how stormvermin are castly superior.

Thank you for doing the check and replying on it!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coruptcopy wrote:The issue then becomes Zombies, which were brought up earlier. Since they can merge units, we might have to adjust them separately. So whereas the rats cost more once we reach a certain number, perhaps Zombies should be treated more as Monsters, as in we should always assume they are getting the maximum benefit even if they are a small unit, since your opponent could start with a bunch of small (under-costed under the rat point method) units and then merge them all turn one to make a massive awesome unit for the cheap. Does that make sense?

This is one way, but it does penalise people who own and want to play with just a small or a few small zombie units. For this one I actually took the easy way out and disabled the Zombie ability to merge units. If people think that was a bad idea, I will of course listen and we'll find another way such as the one you propose. For monsters, I actually use their middle values, but that's another story

coruptcopy wrote:
Thanks again for all you guys are doing. I think this is the best balancing I've seen so far. Also, the website and downloads and presentation is all really solid and easy to use. The discussion here is great. I hope it keeps up. I'll try to add anything I can to it when possible, and once my group starts play testing, I'll try to add in my thoughts from games too.

Comments like this makes it all worth the hours spent And having fine people like the ones we have here on dakkadakka and elsewhere makes the project a fun one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HalfBlood wrote:
@Attilla

Definitely liking the rules 2.0v. It's more eye appealing.

I am getting in a game with my Daemons tomorrow. I will let you know how it goes. Going to randomize a scenario.

Aye, I couldn't help myself but photoshop alittle to make it more pleasing to the eye, even though it's only 0.2

Great - let me know anything you find odd with the scenarios. It's important we think of them as still in the "draft" stage.

Cheers!

Just wanted to thank you for this, the points values seem balanced and very well-thought ought. I'll get some play test results up when I can.

I agree , I think we are forming the basis for a AOS version of the ITC. But with a lot more balance!

Alright, finally got some games in with PPC. First off I want to thank Attilla and others who have worked on this; all of my games with PPC were balanced and far, far more enjoyable than previous AoS games. As for comments I don't have a whole lot to provide given my limited unit range (Daemons of Nurgle) but here's what I got:

-Great Unclean One looks pretty good where it is, but I'm going to have to try it out some more. I have noticed that it can go down relatively easy against a dedicated effort to kill it, but other than that it tends to stay up and at full/near full wounds.

-Epidemius seems well costed, despite vast variability in his effectiveness due to the tally being off models killed rather than wounds caused.

-Herald of Nurgle also seems pretty spot on.

-I think Nurglings need a slight points increase on the basic unit and a slight points decrease on additional models. Because of how their healing ability works, I want to spread wounds out as much as I can, which means as many minimum units as possible. I feel like a min-unit of three is a bit too good for 80 points while I am also unmotivated to take anything beyond that.

-Plaguebearers seem a bit 'meh' in smaller unit sizes and a bit too strong in huge blobs. This comes down almost entirely to enemies getting -1 to hit them in melee at 20+ models. As-is, putting as many as I can into a single unit seems to be the best option. I would recommend lowering the ppm to 8 (leaving the initial unit price at 90), while raising ppm to 10 for each model above 20.

-As a player, I would like to see the 3rd scenario use objective markers with a radius for controlling them rather than zones as this is easier to set up. However this is a minor quibble since its easy enough to put down a 'center' marker for the zone instead of an actual area piece.

Overall I feel like the balance PPC has going is really great (both for my own models and the ones I played against). It takes a game I had mixed feelings about (at best) and makes it very fun, so thank you for that.

Cool a nurgle addict too.
We had a first tournament (no PPM, but gave us some insight on the points).
1- Great Unclean One : it's just a pain to take down without multiple units going at it. It's damage output is not that impressive, but it's resilience is something worthy of Nurgle himself. Price is pretty spot on I think.

2- Nurglings : they can be pestering, with their self healing, but I find them underwhelming at best. Very frail without any save, and with a non-existent offensive output. They are nice speed bumps, but I would not pay them more than what they are now.

3- Plague bearers : I pretty much agree. I will not take them below 20-25 but once there, they are pretty much grinding down any unit you throw at them.

@ Araknir and NinthMusketeer
Thank you both for the input on the daemons! I'll be sure to have that in mind when it's their turn to come around to v0.5!
Also, I'm awaiting my nurgle army to arrive by mail any day now...mortal though, not daemon


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Almost forgot - Beastmen is now v0.5 and can be found on the blog (where else...)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 saithor wrote:
Just wanted to thank you for this, the points values seem balanced and very well-thought ought. I'll get some play test results up when I can.

Thanks very much, looking forward to any test results you may have - all to improve the points accuracy!

Araknir wrote:
2- Nurglings : they can be pestering, with their self healing, but I find them underwhelming at best. Very frail without any save, and with a non-existent offensive output. They are nice speed bumps, but I would not pay them more than what they are now.

As speed bumps they get rolled over, but what I have noticed is that sending them around flanks to hit smaller enemy units often means they will tarpit excessively. The thing is that if an enemy doesn't put 4+ wounds on them in a single turn, then the effort is worth absolutely nothing. It doesn't seem that hard but figure at 4+ hit 4+ wound you need an average of 16 attacks to do it (and even then, about half the time you get nothing, and if you do more than 4 the excess means nothing unless you get to 8). With shooting units getting -1 to hit in melee from PPC's comp, this means that a unit of nurglings can tie up a small to decently sized ranged unit for the entire game. Sure they will likely kill a base or two, but the nurglings will whittle down the enemy as well (particularly with a 1/3 chance of d3 mortal wounds if they do at least 1 wound with their attacks).

My best example of this is a unit of 3 nurglings (80 points) rolling into a unit of 5 judicators w/champ (130 points). After 3 rounds of shooting and 6 rounds of combat the judicators were down to 4.5 wounds (out of 10) and the nurglings were sitting happy at their starting value. Then a unit of melee sigmarites came through and helped mop them up, but the way it was going I would have controlled that zone of the board (playing cleanse scenario) while my opponent had nothing to show for it. While this is certainly an ideal matchup for the nurglings, I think having the initial unit of 3 at ~90 points with additional models at ~18 would be more appropriate. Big blobs of nurglings still won't be ideal because, as you said, they die very quickly to anything that can fight decently, but at the same time it makes taking 4-6ish a balanced option with taking the minimum. As-is, I would never take a single unit of 6 nurglings at 155 points over two units of 3 at 160; if the choice were a single unit of 6 at 144 vs two units of 3 at 180 then its something I would think about. Though ultimately its a minor change, since the value is very close to what it should be (imo).

Attilla , we might consider our slogan as AOS , Forge Your Own Narrative. Might be kind of corny but I think its catchy and definitely relevant. Just a thought!

Just commenting so I can come back to this. Seems pretty good.

Hi guys just got in another game for play test using the comp rules verbatim . I'll list by numbers to make it easier
1: we played the kill point mission with a dawn of war deployment . It worked perfect , game was a blast. Doing the kill points mission and the way to allocate victory points worked great as well. No complaints lots of fun.
2: rolling for initiative , I was very on the fence about it but we did it and it worked out fine.
3: 1500 pts. Of Nurgle vs. Eternals , plenty of balance and the points seemed to work fine.
4: we did play the -2" for terrain , that put maneuver into the game . It also helped slow things down and keep it from denigrating to melee in the middle.
5: my opponent didn't play summoning but mentioned his previous game of AOS (not our comp) and said the summoning is kind of broke.

Nothing else to report as the comp worked super and so did the mission. A blast!!