First: I don't think this is a viable idea, simply because it would mean big job in editing all army lists, in addition to the problems I mention below.

This is obviously inspired by Warmachine/Hordes MkII. For those of you that don't know that game, Privateer Press divided all points cost by something like 15 (I don't know exactly, but I'm told that old 750 points is about 50 points these days). In MkII a typical game is 35 or 50 points, and there are no half point costs. Individual models that would cost less than a point is instead bought in groups (even though they are counted as several independent "solos" ingame). Units come in two sizes, minimum and maximum, typically costing 50% points more for about 67% more models (6/10 models for 4/6 or 6/9 points).

I think this could work well with EA. The big benefit is that it makes it easier to put together an army on the fly. I got no problem calculating with costs of 175 and 350 and adding up to 3000, but it's still easier when using smaller numbers.

How would this affect armies? Of the four armies that were printed in books from GW (Marines, IG, Orks, Eldar) the imperials (SM/IG) would be totally unaffected as all their models cost some multiple of 25. Eldar have one unit that does not, Fire Prisms which cost +15 points each. I think a good solution would be to have the Fire Prism upgrade be +1 point (the equivalent of 25 points currently) to replace one or two Falcons with Prisms.

Orks, though, are a problem. They have multiple units that cost 35 points: Nobz, all Wagons, Dreads, Death Koptas. To keep the cost they would be 2 points for one and 4 points for 3 (so increased costs for singles - maybe 3 points for 2).

Disregarding the work needed to actually implement this, would the tradeoff be worth it? That is, lose a small amount of flexibility for easier arithmetic?

In a word, no. There are simply too many non-25pt increment units out there, and they don't divide properly to upgrade in pairs.

There may be some merit to dividing by five, but frankly I'm not sure how much; it really depends on whether the average gamer finds it easier to add in fives and twenty fives or ones and fives.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

it's not just a little loss of flexibility. its a massive loss of flexibility
and it saves seconds in army list creation (plus i suppose a fraction of wear and tear costs on calculators)
it was a terrible idea when WMk2 did it, it created balance issues and stupid decisions trickled down through the army building process because of it
and the only real reasons would be "maths is hard" (if you cant perform long addition, or find/use a calculator to do it for you, you shouldnt be playing a probability based wargame, or even interacting with society in general) and "we're different to GW!" (or 'change for changes sake')
neither of which are remotely worthwhile goals
so i say nay, we should cast out such ideas into the woods of disregard, where the wolves of stability and logic can tear it limb from metaphorical limb.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

It'll never happen anyway but I dislike the idea and see it as unnecessary - most of us write lists in excel or the online army builder, or can work it out easily enough with a bit of paper.

I'd actually to see 15 point and 35 point upgrades used more in lists to get finer balance in unit costing and list internal balance.

I find the benefits are pretty significant in WM/H. I'm actually above-average in doing sums in my head (when I play 18XX I never use a calculator and I'm ususally quicker in figuring out dividends than the guy punching it in) and I still find it vastly easier to make WM/H armies than in GW games.

The loss of flexibility probably helps there. WM/H is the only game where I don't bother setting up a list and just show up and ask "how many points?"

For me 15 and 35 often create headaches, because they are often more expensive as most of the list in multiples of 25. One 15 point upgrade effectivly costs 25 points, 3 35 points upgrades end up costing 125

see, i find the fact that now elements within a faction need to share points costs to be a serious problem within warmachine. it makes things easier to add up without a pen and paper, but you should be writing your army lists down anyway, so where is the upside?
take deathrippers and nightwretches. neither have recieved any particular change in stats between mk1 and mk2, and yet, while one was 7 points (or close to 1% of an average game, or more directly, close to 15% of the price of the warjack in question) more expensive than the other (and still widely regarded as a better choice than its cheaper cousin) they now cost exactly the same points.
are they exactly as good as each other? no they are not. they werent before, they certainly arent now. and yet, they are required to cost the same by a point structure that restricts options with no particular upside. i'm not saying deathrippers should cost less, or nightwretches should cost more. what i'm saying is that a system which requires a 20% increase in effectiveness before differentiating costs between a deathripper and a nightwretch, has a serious flaw inherent in its design. (it's even worse with 1pt solos, who need a 100% increase in effectiveness to be differentiated from other 1pt solos)

making army lists is easier in WM because there are less models, less blocks of purchase, and less details within those blocks, thus, less choice. did you play mk1? do you find it significantly easier to make an army in mk2 than you did in mk1? it really has nothing to do with "smaller numbers are easier to work with"

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

Basically, designing a game from scratch to use lower points costs is probably a good thing, but trying to retrofit it to epic isn't worth the hassle.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

which would not be a problem if they where used more frequently, and thus allowed more fine-tuning in a list.
yes, a single 35 point option in an otherwise 25 point increment list will be troublesome, but if there where several options of both 35 and 15 points aswell, there would be a greater control over game balance, without a lot of leftover/wasted points in a list

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

I don't see why it makes a headache and the point is surely to make the units cheaper or more expensive than if they had to be 25 or 50.

If you take a single 35 point upgrade in an otherwise 25 point multiple list then for most army building purposes you've effectively spent 50. Yet if you take 2 x 35 point units you can also take a 25 point and add up the lot to effectively 100 points, so you have more points than you would if the 2 units were 50 points each.

why not just divide by 5 instead?

The lists I am involved with in writing are in multiples of 25 (other than Chaos Daemons - not allowed to change them it seems).

Makes army building that much easier when they are in such point blocks.

If something does not fit, then make it fit or do without. It has worked so far.

Once again, I guess I am a glass half full kinda guy

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I'm pretty sure that one or three units in an army at 15 or 35 would make no difference at all for balance compared to if they had cost 25 points. The point system isn't that precise. There is an effect that shows up when you buy many such units, but that would easily be handled by some rounding and group rates (like 1 nobz for 50 and 2 for 75).

The reason for not dividing by 5 (which imo should have been done when the game was designed, it's not like there is any cost that isn't in multiples of 5 ) is that it would now be a lot of work for almost no benefit - 500 point armies aren't so much easier to handle than 3000 points, but I think that 100 point armies are.