Tactical Command :: View topic - Points costs in formations

THIS THIS THIS THIS. Our neurotic inability to price things outside of multiples of 25 and ranges in multiples of 15cm just drives me nuts. itcamefromthedeep, you're my new favorite person today

If an army champion were to write in "add up to 3 storm ravens for 80 points each" would anyone really get angry? Would that army list *actually* get rejected by some higher-up, or the net-EA community at large? For that matter, would anyone care if someone posted a 35-cm range weapon? That sort of thing is a break with convention, but not a change in rules.

f people want 10 pnt or 5 point increments fine, but I think we kid ourselves if we think it matters. Playing is supposed to be fun.

On the flip side of the argument that we need smaller point costs - if you're starting to get nit picky about 10-15 point increments, you're also in the slightly neurotic camp. Welcome to the group! LOL

itcamefromthedeep wrote:

Yes. Yes they would

80 points might fly but 35cm range bands are not on.

I'll just point out that Orks came that way from day 1. The 25points was neither rule nor guideline, just convenient.

Author:	itcamefromthedeep [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 1:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Points costs in formations
Split from BA thread: itcamefromthedeep wrote: Not having points values in increments lower than 25 is a problem. The game needs that granularity. Sorry, I don't really care about how pretty anyone thinks the numbers are, because at that point you might as well just cut every points value down by 1:25 and save people some mental math. A 3000 point game really only has 120 points worth of granularity, and I don't think that's enough to work with small disparities like the extra speed on a BA rhino. jimmyzimms wrote: THIS THIS THIS THIS. Our neurotic inability to price things outside of multiples of 25 and ranges in multiples of 15cm just drives me nuts. itcamefromthedeep, you're my new favorite person today Thanks for the vote of confidence on the points values. I think I'll mention it in a more general feedback thread.

Author:	mordoten [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 2:25 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
The rules won't be changing at all though if you read what hs bern said about the state of the rules before. So a general feedback on the system itself might be unneccecary work... How many games of Epic have you done so far?

Author:	itcamefromthedeep [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
I've played 5 games so far ( it might only be 4), spread out over the better part of a year. If an army champion were to write in "add up to 3 storm ravens for 80 points each" would anyone really get angry? Would that army list actually get rejected by some higher-up, or the net-EA community at large? For that matter, would anyone care if someone posted a 35-cm range weapon? That sort of thing is a break with convention, but not a change in rules.

Author:	Dobbsy [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
On the flip side of the argument that we need smaller point costs - if you're starting to get nit picky about 10-15 point increments, you're also in the slightly neurotic camp. Welcome to the group! LOL itcamefromthedeep wrote: If an army champion were to write in "add up to 3 storm ravens for 80 points each" would anyone really get angry? Would that army list actually get rejected by some higher-up, or the net-EA community at large? For that matter, would anyone care if someone posted a 35-cm range weapon? That sort of thing is a break with convention, but not a change in rules. Yes. Yes they would 80 points might fly but 35cm range bands are not on.

Author:	itcamefromthedeep [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
Well, it seems that Fire Prisms already get to be 65 points each. If an army list writer wants to break the 25-point increment taboo, then go for it. Nobody is stopping you.

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Points costs in formations http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=28162	Page 1 of 2

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 4:48 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
I'll just point out that Orks came that way from day 1. The 25points was neither rule nor guideline, just convenient. PS thanks for the split

Author:	Blip [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
On the plus side - the simple, clear army lists which can easily be added up in ones head are almost always commented on by people who I introduce the game to. Particularly 40k players ! To be honest there are much greater issues of balance than 10 points here or there in a game played across multiple play groups with different meta, rules on terrain, interpretations of critical rules, miniature basing conventions etc. If people want 10 pnt or 5 point increments fine, but I think we kid ourselves if we think it matters. Playing is supposed to be fun.

Author:	Kyrt [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
The 25 points thing is by no means required. It can be as small as is needed, except you have to admit that a lot of people find it easier to work in a limited range of possible points costs that are mutually compatible, and the 25 point thing happens to do that. By that I mean, if you have 75 points left over, you can easily remember which combination of changes you can make to your list to fill them. That is particulary important in the many lists that have rigid structures (fixed formation sizes). In this respect you're right, it could just as easily be divided by 25 if it weren't for the fact that some lists DO have different conventions, and obviously 3000 in one list needs to be equal to 3000 in another. If it were needed, there is no problem in introducing 5, or 10 point changes in the marine list per se - the problem as I see it is purely that it gets peoples' OCD going if there is only one upgrade that does it People hate being 15 points short and not being able to fill it

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 5:40 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
That's a failure of list design to find fluffy and thematic combinations that slot together in such a way. A completely hypothetical combination example would be Predator destructors and Marine bikes working in such a way. Regardless there's few locations where things like this are demonstrably good ideas (Space Marine Captains and Dreadnoughts being notorious examples) but even when they are, for some reason the OCD kicks in as you say Kyrt. Blip wrote: f people want 10 pnt or 5 point increments fine, but I think we kid ourselves if we think it matters. Playing is supposed to be fun. It might not matter in your local meta with that army but it is presumptuous to assume that is everywhere true. If the game isn't being fun I'd counter that there's some bigger issues at work than your list ha!

Author:	Angel_of_Caliban [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 8:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Blood Angels List Development Thread
Dobbsy wrote: On the flip side of the argument that we need smaller point costs - if you're starting to get nit picky about 10-15 point increments, you're also in the slightly neurotic camp. Welcome to the group! LOL itcamefromthedeep wrote: If an army champion were to write in "add up to 3 storm ravens for 80 points each" would anyone really get angry? Would that army list actually get rejected by some higher-up, or the net-EA community at large? For that matter, would anyone care if someone posted a 35-cm range weapon? That sort of thing is a break with convention, but not a change in rules. Yes. Yes they would 80 points might fly but 35cm range bands are not on. I agree with Dobbsy, but my issue would be 80 points more then the 35cm. Non-25 point increments annoy me greatly and I really think its stupid and unnecessary to create non-25 point options. Because its usually from some nit-picky thing like "Well this isn't really worth 75 but much more then 50" Really? Its a game with units? Stop micromanaging it. Secondly the list usually only have 1 option that is off and causes issues trying to build a full army list. Just my 2 cents

Author:	Ginger [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:16 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
While I understand the sentiment, having various different upgrade costs has a significant impact on the way that these upgrades can be used. The 65 point Falcon transport cost is a case in point because it is very difficult to fit into an army list (irrespective of the views on the unit in this role). As others have said, 25 point increments facilitates building armies, but they also facilitate making choices between the formations and upgrades available in the list.

Author:	Dobbsy [ Tue Sep 09, 2014 11:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
jimmyzimms wrote: I'll just point out that Orks came that way from day 1. The 25points was neither rule nor guideline, just convenient. Have you considered that the Orks are that way because of the large number of units and the crazy way Orks put together armies? It's actually fluffy. Marines are more structured IMO so 25 points as a minimum cost can be considered due to army effects such as special rules etc. It also limits Marines from adding the kitchen sink to a degree. All this said I have no issue putting 2 units in for 25, 50, 75 or 125 points etc. It's a tidy way to use the 25 point range bands. There's really no need to put in 10-15 point units IMO.

Author:	Onyx [ Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:26 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
It's worth pointing out the Chaos Marines have 10pt Rhinos and 35pt Vindicators.

Author:	jimmyzimms [ Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
Actually Onyx beat me to that very example I was going to make myself. However I complete hear what you're saying, mate. And most would probably / should probably be multiples of 25's. There's a difference with most and using that as a starting point and must, that's all I'm saying. And sorry, we had to custom build the IH list to make dreds and captains worth taking by creating 35 point per unit formations for that very reason Now I should make it completely clear that there's almost no units in the Marine and Guard arsenal that don't really fit in the 25 multiple. I'm just debating on principle (2 Jews-3 arguments as the old saying goes ) and to shake thinking patterns up. I also should argue against myself that the Chaos troops costs support Dobbsy's assertion of representing a less regimented force as well.

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	itcamefromthedeep [ Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:51 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Points costs in formations
Some players are neurotic enough to care about the difference between 50 points per model and 60 points per model. Others are neurotic enough to care about the last 15 points in lists. It seems there are a fair few neuroses going around! I you don't like minis that come in odd numbers, then don't bring any! I hope you aren't too uptight to avoid a few units in an army list, amirite? --- When I looked at the newest rules, I just about gave up on playing the game. My collection of Epic 40k Guard didn't have any units in the right numbers. I had maybe 3000 points worth of minis, but not enough to make any of the core formations. Part of this I blame directly on the inflexibility of going for even numbers in points values. Particularly in a game that's out of print and often features minis from partial collections like mine, this inflexibility seems like a less-than-welcoming stance. I understand that 25s are pretty, <CS: removed> but I'd like to cast a vote for points by-the-model if you please, and granularity in prices will not only help with that, but help clear those last few pesky points at the end of a list. I resent that I can't ever use 2 out of my 6 Whirlwinds, for some unfathomable reason. It seems odd that Ultramarines won't field them in any number but four. Four shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be four. Five shall thou not count, nor thou count three, excepting that thou then proceed to four. Six is right out!