Option Summary

1. A vote for "yea" (yes). Means that a point system to cost individual models will be developed and applied uniformly through the army list. The system will consistent of a breakdown of the value of relative stats that apply to all units (move, attack dice, save modifier, etc) and a list of unit abilities or powers (psychic powers, elite, PD, etc). The total value of a model is the total sum of all these attributes. Once this is down detachment, company and special card costs are determined. Discounts due to special army rules can be easily inserted into the cost formulas.

2. A vote for "nay" (No). Means you would prefer the points system to remain as it currently is with the exception of tweaking individual units from across several army lists that are generally deemed under or over valued (example eldar wind rider hosts, etc). This method is quicker and easier and requires the change of only a handful of units. It may also require slight tweaking of the stats to fit cost designations.


Hi!

I already can see the old "how much should this cost" discussions erupting over the different lists. This is a very old topic of discussion.

I have always that though that there is really only one means of solving it and have it uniformly apply and that's a unit points system.

I don't mean a system to make your own units (although it could be used for that), but one that would fix the price of a single model/stand/vehicle and once the single model cost is determined, then detachment, company and special card price can be projected easily (or add discounts for company cards).

Right the whole system is "eye-balling". This is similar to that or this other thing. I did this with my Heresy Game and it avoid a whole slew of this type of problem. Its not that hard really.

If there is interest in this, let me know and I can lay down the skeleton of how this should work.

Primarch

I'm not much of a one for universality in wargaming. I prefer to use a relative system for establishing points costs, and usually prefer to look within lists, rather than across lists, to achieve this comparison, since internal balance is the first thing to get right before looking externally. Maybe because I've been around for a long time I prefer to go by intuition and gaming experience, rather than by a formula, too.

Others may feel differently, but I'm hesitant to go down this route.

_________________

I think it needs a combination of internal and external balance. It is all well and good if an army is well balanced within themselves and all the units are proportionally costed, but if everything in the army is twice as good as another army with similar costs would that be fair and balanced?

Matt

Also discussing points costs is the easiest thing to tweak to begin with and likely to be the area which gives the most improvement to the gaming experience.

Matt

Hi!

Similar things were expressed when the original revisions were discussed. However "intuition" quite simply does not work and is not a proper substitute for fundamental math design, in my humble opinion.

As Mattman points out, it cannot only be consistent within an army list, but more importantly be balanced with other army lists, since those are you opponents. I'd go one further and say balance across army lists in more important than internal army list consistency in a game of opposed forces.

We still carry the GW legacy of "winging it". GW games design is notorious for it. Unlike the Heresy game points system I devised for it, I thing the epic one would be far easier since there are far less variables involved.

If I had my way, I'd overhaul the whole points system. After all if army cards are being done away with (being rendered optional instead of necessity), what do we owe the legacy unit costs?

In end I see these unit point costs discussions head where they always do. Nowhere. Some will say its too low, some will say its too high and there will be little consensus.

With an objective points system all can agree on (because the discussion will be on the value of certain stats over others), once done, it is applied and there can be no argument on what a detachment or company costs.

After 17 years of doing this and seeing this topic over and over again I can tell you quite categorically, there will be no end to this without an objective universal point system to balance everything across the board.

My two cents, but as always I obey the groups majority desires.

Primarch

I wouldn't know where to start Primarch, but if you or anyone else is able to come up with a formula that we can all agree on then sure, I'm game!

I suppose as well as coming up with a basic formula we'd need to see a good few examples of the formula applied to various units to get a feel for how it would work.

My main worry about this would be that no matter how solid a system was devised that we could end up failing to agree on anything due to 20 years of in-built prejudice for the points values as they stand. That could be very dispiriting for anyone who puts in a lot of time and effort to this project...

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

Oh, I know where to start. I'm the same person whom recommends a point system and actually posts one over the years. Its just that I have not been successful in convincing people to ditch the legacy points system for a unified, coherent and balanced one.

I'm asking if people want this first before i do the leg work once more.

Primarch

For all those of us who've played the game for years Primarch, which is probably the majority of NetEpic players, there will always be a legacy cost, regardless of whether the cards remain . We can't forget what we know, well, I certainly can't . I've grown up with that system, it makes sense to me, and I don't want to spend time having to re-structure it when there's very little, in my opinion, intrinsically wrong with the current system.

I still think too that, when assessing costs, you need to look at internal balance before external balance. Why? Because if you have 'no brainer' or 'never take' choices, or excessive overlap units within the army list before you even compare externally then it's clear that there is already a problem which needs fixing before you start comparing across army lists .

All of that said, I don't think that there are many, if any, major internal balance issues within the army lists, so skipping this step may well be possible with Epic, as it is a more solid system than 40K in this respect.

_________________

Hey Primarch,

I remember you proposing this in the past. Now is a good time to examine it again. I understand your premise - a lascannon is a lascannon regardless of who/what is firing it. I like the idea of being able to boil down a unit's cost to a simple equation. I presume you have point costs in mind to account for things like differing break points, special abilities, etc.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Having played through many editions of games systems, I have seen points costs change with each new edition, it is something that happens, I don't think any game has managed to avoid it, so I don't think doing something similar for this is a bad thing.
If you have a proposal Primarch, then I am happy to consider it.

Matt

Hi!

It's just a lot of work, laying it out (and discussing it as well). If all we're going to do is tweak here and there, we can do that and it will be faster and easier. As Irisado points out, I think many of us know the points cost of most units inside out and to change it does impose an additional burden to relearn everything.

However you cant really make the cost of the things like the wind rider host fair, until you address the overall unit cost. Some things are just way too undervalued.

Does anyone know how to make a poll? I think I would do that to gauge interest before throwing anything it out there.

Primarch

Would the pointing system take into account that the windrider host is only allowed in one craftworld and that it imposes additional restrictions? It is managing the restrictions which I think will solve the issue in the case.

Matt

Hi Primarch,

If you edit your first post on this thread you should scroll down under the text and there you should see the section to add a poll. From what I can see only you will be able to do this as you are in charge of the thread. If you have problems, let me know and I can set up a seperate thread with the question.

Mattman makes a good point. I was already thinking about how you would cost units with hit templates, superheavies which have the damage table and also units with powers such as the Howling Banshees psychic scream.

Would it be the case that while we could come up with a system for the basic stats but would have to weight some costs to address some of these points?

_________________
Clickable links for more Epic goodness:

Life of Die Channel including Epic Podcasts and Battle Reports

Epic 40K Players Page on Facebook
Net Epic Evolution Rules
Net Epic War! Campaign Rules

Hi!

It would. Lets say for the sake of an example we determined that the true cost of such a company was, say 900. We could then discount it for special exception like the craftworld rule by any suitable amount OR by a standard amount (lets say the points cost formula dictates a 10% discount for a company/ detachment when the force has restrictions on buying other units.

There's tons of stuff a codified system can achieve. The biggest hurdle is the "buy in" to such a system.

Primarch

If you're going to have a vote on whether to pursue the new system Primarch, I think that you're going to need to explain it, at least in summary form. We're all going to need a good understanding of exactly how it would work before being able to vote for, or against it, in a fair manner.

_________________