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.

Is this a reasonable house-rule for paying for additional models above the minimum unit size WITHOUT paying for the maximum unit size?
Divide the minimum unit size by the number of models, then round to the nearest increment of 5. That's how much an extra model cost.

For example, Dire Avengers are 70pts for 5 models. 70÷5=14. Round to 15.
So 6 Dire Avengers can cost 85pts

Another example: Windriders cost 80 for 3
80÷3=26.7. Round up to 30.
So 4 Windriders are 110pts

Marine example: Aggressors are 110pts for 3
110÷3=36.7. Round to 40
4 Aggressors are 150pts

My son and I own several units like this that are neither at the minimum unit size, nor the max. So this is how we are going to build our lists.
I just don't think it's fair to pay for 10 models to be able to field all 6 that we have.
I think this is a fair way to do it since it rounds up (adding extra points) and keeps everything in increments of 5 like everything in the game now

Seems fine. What I likely would be doing if me or my friends want to still field mid sized units.

Another benefit to this house rule is going to be allowing lists to get closer to an army limit.
Niw that wargear is "free" most armies don't have a convenient way to add 15, 25, 40 or however many points needed to get to 1500 or 2000pts.
Adding a model here or there to units is always how I've done this in the past and how I ended up with so many units with "incorrect" unit sizes in the first place

-

I think they idea in tenth is that enhancements are to be the points filler now.

That how it works for my army list I am working on. The models add up to 1955 so I got up to 45 points in enhancements to work with.

 KingGarland wrote:
I think they idea in tenth is that enhancements are to be the points filler now.

That how it works for my army list I am working on. The models add up to 1955 so I got up to 45 points in enhancements to work with.

It'd be nice to have more than one Enhancement that can be taken...
*Is miffed in Nurgle Daemons*

Just want to chime in and say that this seems like a reasonable proposal.

The best way would be to take the cost of the maximum number of models, subtract the cost for the minimum number of models, and then divide by the difference of the maximum and minimum models.

For example, 5 Devastators are 120 points while 10 are 200 points. So we have:
(200-120)/(10-5)=80/5=16 points per model above 5.

 alextroy wrote:
The best way would be to take the cost of the maximum number of models, subtract the cost for the minimum number of models, and then divide by the difference of the maximum and minimum models.

For example, 5 Devastators are 120 points while 10 are 200 points. So we have:
(200-120)/(10-5)=80/5=16 points per model above 5.

That's a good point. All my Eldar units are exactly double points when you go from min to max, so it didn't occur to me that there might be units with points that aren't double.
It's particularly annoying for Aspect warriors because the Exarch is where all the extra wargear and abilities come from, but when you go from 5 to 10, you don't get another Exarch.
So if you're forced to pay for the max number of units, you may as well just buy a second min size unit instead and get another Exarch

That's why my 2x5 Shining Spears have been downgraded to 2x3. Its 120pts for 3, 240pts for 6. Yet the Exarch has an extra wound, better invul and superior gun and melee weapon. Why would I pay 240pts for a unit of 6 with just 1 Exarch, when I can pay the same cost for 2x3 and get 2 Exarchs?

That's one of the major issues with the min/max unit sizes. No point in maxing out the unit when 2 min sized units are often superior.
And Enhancements aren't always going to fill the gap to reach points limits. Most enhancements seem to be around 15-25pts and you only get 3
If you could add 1 or 2 extra models to units for additional points cost BELOW the max unit cost, it would go a long way to fleshing out list as close as possible to the ageed limit (1500, 2000, etc)

Your suggested pointing method sounds agreeable for units without ("for every X models..) wargear options. But for units like Devastators, where the extra models are just chaff, and the cost of heavy weapons is baked into the smaller unit size? hmmm

I was thinking of just paying the larger unit size points myself, but then again, I am a person who has no hesitations about nerfing themselves on purpose

I'd probably go with the higher model count.

ie divide the maximum squad cost by 10 or whatever the number is, and then use that to add to the minimum.

Perhaps even keep the half points if required and only round if the combined total has a 0.5 in it.

ie intercessor squad is 190 for 10. 19 each. So you purchase 95 points for 5 and then add 19 for each additional one you want.

Most units are just 5 and then 10 is double.

Dev Squads are different because the cost of the heavy weapons are built into the first 5 (24 points each), and then the last 5 Marines are Bolter guys, so they're cheaper (16 points each).

I wouldn't average it or find some sort of median for adding extra Marines, as you're not getting extra Heavy Weapons.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Most units are just 5 and then 10 is double.

Dev Squads are different because the cost of the heavy weapons are built into the first 5 (24 points each), and then the last 5 Marines are Bolter guys, so they're cheaper (16 points each).

I wouldn't average it or find some sort of median for adding extra Marines, as you're not getting extra Heavy Weapons.

Yeah, Devastators are definitely the outlier in this. I can't find any other units that don't just double in points when going from 5 to 10, or 3 to 6.
Devs are definitely a unit that you'd want to take 2x5 instead of 10. At least GW released not to double points for them
Wish they did they same for Aspect Warriors or other units with significantly better "Sgts".

So in general I think this house rule works. It's not perfect, but errs on the side of spend just a bit more for the convenience of taking units above min-size without spending as much to just take another unit (because, again, if you have to pay for a max unit size, in most cases taking 2 min-sized units is better)

-

 tauist wrote:
Your suggested pointing method sounds agreeable for units without ("for every X models..) wargear options. But for units like Devastators, where the extra models are just chaff, and the cost of heavy weapons is baked into the smaller unit size? hmmm

I was thinking of just paying the larger unit size points myself, but then again, I am a person who has no hesitations about nerfing themselves on purpose

To determine the cost of adding the extra 5 subtract the cost of 5 from the cost of 10. Divide the cost of taking the extra 5 by 5 to determine the cost of adding one extra Devastator. Subtract the cost of adding 5 from the original cost of the unit to find the heavy weapons tax.

Cost of adding five models=200-120=80

Cost of adding one Devastator=80/5=16

Heavy weapons tax=120-80=40

5-10 Devastators = 40pts+16 pts/model

I still think we need to round up to the nearest increment of 5.
EVERYTHING in the game is increments of 5, so adding 16pts here or 8 pts there doesn't mean with how points are designed.

More importantly, rounding up can be considered the "tax" for adding models above the minimum without paying the cost for the Max unit. Helps keep it feeling more fair.
My son has 4 Aggressors, which are 3 for 110 or 36 7ppm. We just round up to 40ppm.
So his 4 models are 150pts in our games. Still way better than 220pts for 6, but only using 4.
It's also way better for Transports. He can fit his 4 Aggressors + a Gravis Captain in a LR or Repulsor.
3 + Gravis Capt seems too small as there are 2 more "spots" either Transport could take, while 6+Gravis Capt cannot fit in a transport at all.

The ideal would be 5+Gravis, of course, but he owns 4, so that's what we want to use

-