Interesting points mechanic for warscrolls

[Ladril Caledor]

Just watched the Age of Sigmar Test Game video on YouTube and they came up with an interesting system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYG-APGLIXs

Wounds + Attacks x Bravery equals Points.

They also doubled points for cavalry, shooters and monsters.

It's not bad, but I've made a few changes which I think balance things further.

Wounds x Attacks x Bravery equals Points. Double points for shooters only. Each magic user adds 100 points per spell that they can cast per turn. Monsters calculate points cost based on a 'minimum number of attacks' eg Imrik has 8 attacks for points purposes, and between 12 and 8 attacks in game (depending on his remaining wounds)

This actually seems to balance fairly well. Here are a few examples across the spectrum:

Clan rat: 4
Spearelf: 6
Phoenix Guard: 14
Sister of Avelorn: 14
Dragon Prince of Caledor: 56
Standard mage: 135
Teclis: 340
Tyrion: 432
Imrik on Dragon: 896
Malekith: 1208

I'm sure it is nowhere near perfect, but it seems to avoid most of the balance issues of a pure model count or wounds based system, and I can see myself having fun trying to build a decent army list for a points limit using this system and the warscrolls.

There are also some obvious things to fix...such as halving the Bravery of Undead infantry when it comes to calculating points (so skeletons are 5 points and not 10). I'm sure there are lots of other issues but I'm equally sure they would be easily solvable.

What do you think?

[Grenic]

Let’s run a few more examples (here I assume that the “Attacks” they are using are the melee attacks only).

I really don’t think a High Elf Archers are worth 12 points a model, just slightly less than a White Lion or a Sister of Avelorn.

Are Shadow Warriors really almost twice as good as a Sister or White Lion, because they will cost 24 points a model!

Now onto our cavalry, Reavers would be 72 points/model, Silver Helms at 42 points/model, and Dragon Princes at 56 points/model!

I think change to multiplying by the wounds won't work.

Even if you revert back to the base approach, I don’t think it would accomplish anything other than punish regular troop models with shooting.

[AD8899]

No points system will work for AoS.

Points systems were viable in WFB, and are in 40k, because you have rigid army books (and a limited allies system). That means that units can be priced based upon their utility within a very limited list. AoS allows any warscrolls in any combination, which means the variables of combinations are not calculable for a points-based system.

You could completely change the rules and go back to saying people can only play HE units, or Dwarfs, but that removes a key aspect of the game (and one of the few things that makes it really appealing)

You're trying to find a way to play the game which only works if you rigidly stick to 'dead' army lists, and how long will that system be viable even if someone finds a magic formula? How long until it becomes stale? I'd give it a few months, and it's probably more time than that to get it working.

My Vampire Counts are about to be reinforced by several units of Count's Guard (Empire state troops), enthralled townsfolk (Militia) and the Count's Ambassador (Empire General) - along with a secret cannibal cult (Witch Elves or Khorne troops) and Zombie giants. How on earth is a points system going to balance that out?

If the points system is only for tournaments using strictly racial lists, then a meta will develop very quickly and never, ever change again. Which would be a nightmare.

[jamierk]

From a tournament perspective, there is a massive hole here. I agree that no points system which doesn't take into account army wide synergy, individual model special rules and abilities, internal balance and external balance will simply fall over in competitive play, even in semi-competitive play. But even with the rather poorly set points of the previous editions, i could take a significant variety of lists to my 8th ed tournaments within the comp of the tournament itself, and know

A) I would be competitive without being WAAC
B) I could have a complete game of warhammer with my opponent that we may both enjoy (not always of course but 80-90% of the time)
C) The outcome of the game has a significant chance of being decided by dice and tactical play

If we can achieve these three things i'd be happy.

Thanks

Jamie

[AD8899]

If it can be done at all, I think it's going to be much, much more complicated than just assigning points to stats. As you say, the value of stats and equipment varies from model to model and army to army. The only way to find a usable metric is to spend months playtesting, and how do you playtest an army if you have no known quantity to balance it against?

The hardest thing to do is restart a game from scratch. Look at 4th edition Warhammer. The balance was miles off, because GW almost started from scratch and found it impossible to balance armies - as there was no reference point. I have no idea how you would test an army with no existing armies to test it against. Playtesting for a new game launch (which this would be) can take anything up to 2 years, and sometimes even requires the creation of a "basic" army to balance other forces against.

How many games have the people developing points systems actually played? How much do they actually understand, at this stage, of the army synergies? I'd suggest it's very little, and they are basically just looking at cards and using assumptions from 8th edition.

Fixing a points system good enough for a balanced tournament scene, with the starting point we currently have, is an epic task. It's not something one person can do, and a universal system with stats worth 'x' at all times just won't cut it. You would need what GW used to have, which is an experienced force of dozens of volunteers to first just play the game. Figure out every trick and ploy with all the armies, and then figure out what the most valuable units are and why - then you can start to work on army metrics.

[jamierk]

We played a few games with starter set yesterday, omg bravery is a VERY valuable stat, as well as anything preventing battleshock tests.

[AD8899]

Agreed. The units with banners that allow them to halve battleshock damage are at a huge advantage relative to others.

[jamierk]

Those celestial buggers with wings totally ran off with just a single casualty at Bravery 6.

[Ladril Caledor]

Sure it's not a system that gives you perfectly balanced armies for competitive play. It's more of a quick, easy mechanic that can be used to create lists that are roughly equal. In this spirit, I think it works a lot better than total model or wound count.

Another change that balances it a little little more...steeds only count as one attack. I actually don't mind reavers coming out as slightly more expensive than our other cavalry...they are pretty great in Age.

Archers being 12 with White Lions being 14 doesn't seem too bad to me. With the ability to shoot in, into and out of combat shooters are just a whole lot better than they used to be.

Let's put this another way...is it a perfect system? No. But is there another simple, better way to balance games? Not that I've seen.

[AD8899]

Those celestial buggers with wings totally ran off with just a single casualty at Bravery 6.

Vampire counts are almost all Bravery 10....big advantage.

[AD8899]

In terms of basic comp it's seriously flawed.

8 wounds on a model with a 4+ save are probably 'worth' more than 10 wounds on a model with a 6+ save, especially given that armour negating attacks are now much less common. Equally, many models now cause multiple wounds. An Ogre's 3 attacks, each causing 3 wounds, would be worth more than 3 attacks from a model that causes 1 wound per attack. There's also all the other variables it doesn't touch.

Having actually played a few games, I can't see how it's even close. It might be marginally better than just wounds, but not much.

[jamierk]

I'm finding the opposite to be true in the games we played, single wound models can have an advantage over 2 wound models, (battleshock is the most obvious example) provided those single wound models are nimble enough to pile around for attacks.