How were the point values established.

[Arkiham]

As title really.

Was it based solely on the statline/profile or did the actual model come into consideration.

Is basing a issue now, as for the old chaos cav models, you could fit 6 or 7 in a line for the equivalent battle line of 5 on the oval bases.

Stacking is obviously a no no in games

[Shane]

X20 SCGT seems to have been their baseline.

There's no real formula, if that's what you're asking. Base size is irrelevant for points.

Points will not be truly balanced. There to help two players pick a force in that method if they wish.

 

Edit: What I hope for instead is a yearly GH with a new rotation of maps and updated points based on community feedback. 

[Arkiham]

I was hoping the generals handbook would be not bound as it is, but ring bound or something, so you could add an remove pages as required, add faqs, new scenarios, new armies etc.

Alot better than having half the information in a book or app and the rest in 5 different places.

I wasn't too impressed with the generals handbooks quality either, it feels cheap. (It was)

I plan on asking them if I could have a printable version so I can get a higher quality paper and bound how I want. I dont think expect they will let me so I'll have to find a pdf an do it 

[MechaBriZilla]

22 hours ago, Arkiham said:

I was hoping the generals handbook would be not bound as it is, but ring bound or something, so you could add an remove pages as required, add faqs, new scenarios, new armies etc.

Alot better than having half the information in a book or app and the rest in 5 different places.

I wasn't too impressed with the generals handbooks quality either, it feels cheap. (It was)

I plan on asking them if I could have a printable version so I can get a higher quality paper and bound how I want. I dont think expect they will let me so I'll have to find a pdf an do it 

Really?

I'm a little surprised.  I thought the book was a great value for the money.  Paper seemed good to me, print quality and durability look pretty good too.  Of course, that all depends on how much abuse the book is going to take, and that will be different for everyone.  So, obviously quality is a bit of a subjective topic.

As for rebinding.  I have friends that take all of their RPG or other game books to a place like FedEx-Kinko's and get the original binding cut off, and then rebind them with a plastic spiral that works pretty well.  You could also have them punched to go into a binder like you mentioned.  Some of my more hardcore buddies have even sprung to have all of the pages laminated for books they knew were going to see a ton of use, though that was really expensive.  Not sure if I'd recommend it.  I've been thinking about doing something like this with all my army warscrolls.  So I can have one binder with all of the info I need for my game.  Hope that helps you out a bit.

[mmimzie]

The rules work well on ipad but i think i'd echo @Shane's hopes. Or even a year and a half or something would be fine. I don't think the core rules need any or much work. Keep it small and simple and open for tactical use. 

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, MechaBriZilla said:

Really?

I'm a little surprised.  I thought the book was a great value for the money.  Paper seemed good to me, print quality and durability look pretty good too.  Of course, that all depends on how much abuse the book is going to take, and that will be different for everyone.  So, obviously quality is a bit of a subjective topic.

 

 cheaply priced I agree which was nice. 

But I felt that the pages felt cheap in the sense of easy to damagensure,  via creases, turning the pages awkwardly etc.

Nothing like the grand alliance books

[MOMUS]

On 14 August 2016 at 4:52 PM, Shane said:

Edit: What I hope for instead is a yearly GH with a new rotation of maps and updated points based on community feedback. 

So you hope for the design team to go backwards?

why must it be a yearly update? AoS is about treading new ground, why not update the points as often as possible using some kind of inexpensive, easily accessible digital format? If only they had an app...

[Shane]

Why would doing anything at all be backwards? 

And the points are in the app, and you have to pay for them in the app. So it'd be exactly the same.

[mmimzie]

Yearly gives us time to see if thjngs are actually broken, and just adjust to things. If we're pointed everything every month or every few months you'd never be able to actually practise a list. The only way the game would be on a less stable surface then work be having to play every game on top of an earth quake board. 

 

2 hours ago, MOMUS said:

[Lucio]

Typically games with a living rules system work in seasons, you introduce changes on a quarterly, half yearly or yearly basis, so that your fanbase isn't constantly having to fight to keep up, but at the same time, allows flexibility of change.

That said, I fully expect GW to be a lot more static than this, and that we'll see at best, shifts in paradigm approximately every 2 years, in the opposite year to one where WH40k gets changes.

[MechaBriZilla]

I personally think it would be good for them to revisit each factions points one year from their battletome release, and every year thereafter.

Points can be updated online, so there isn't really a specific need to publish a book at all when updating a factions balance.  This would allow them to keep bringing new units/armies into play while keeping older ones updated.  Which will be likely to be important in AoS, since we have so many factions that even if we had an updated/new battletome every other week (with 40k content on our off weeks, and completely ignoring Specialist games and other things that don't fit into one of the flagships proper.) you are looking at an Epic 21 battletomes a year, and even at that blistering pace, with 61 separate factions listed on the web site, it would take the better part of three years to produce and/or update tomes for all factions.  Heck, Order has 21 factions all on their own... In contrast we've had 13 this year, (not including non-army based battletomes) so at this rate, which I believe we all see as very good, we're still talking a full line update just once about every 4 and a half years.  Assuming no new factions get introduced. 

Now, I know that traditionally GW has shied away from free updates, but lets be honest here, we are in a new GW epoch now.  Though I suppose they could just release updated grand alliance books every year or an updated GHB every year, and that would also cover the problem while letting them still make a little cash on it.  Though, the cost of the GA books have been low enough, it may ultimately be cheaper for them to just push the updates online, rather than pay for printing/storage/shipping/etc. or close enough to make it a relative financial wash.  As for yearly GHB's.  I'd be totally ok with that as long as they provide enough new material with each one.  I.e. new campaign types, new battleplans, etc. 

 

Of course, another option, is that we are at the end of the idea of longstanding armies.  And instead of getting updates, each battletome lasts, as is, until it fades away into the past.  With a storyline that is progressive, we could see the rise and fall of factions within the AoS setting.  Some model would get retired with no update, other getting rolled into completely new factions as the tides of war, and the story itself ebbs and flows over the years.  This may be my favorite option of all.  A constantly changing factions list....

[daedalus81]

Determining points could be as simple as a measure of combat effectiveness, durability, bravery, and speed to come to a rough figure.

Using 4+/4+ attacks with rend 0 through -2 to determine durability let's use 100 point melee units to do an experiment.

Liberators average 3.06 damage and take 72.6 hits to be wiped out.
Blood Warriors average 3.56 damage and take 62.6 hits to be wiped out.

17% more damage and 14% less durability - disregarding their situational abilities.  I would say they are pretty close to being evenly costed.  

Plaguebearers do 2.15 and take 74 (without -1 to hit; reroll saves comes from an external model) - they jump to 111 with -1 to hit. Ghouls are 3.52 and 40.76 (more evidence of synergy calculations) -- they go to 5.27 damage with +1A.

When you multiply these numbers together something interesting happens:

	DMG	DBL
Liberators	3.06	72.6	222.15
Blood Warriors	3.56	62.6	222.85
Plague Bearers	2.15	80	172.00
Plague Bearers +	2.15	111	238.65
Crypt Ghouls	3.52	40.76	143.47
Crypt Ghouls +	5.27	40.76	214.80

The value of ghouls are a bit worse overall, but they move the fastest and have a solid 10 bravery.  Plaguebearers value the highest (at size), but are also the slowest and can blink.

[daedalus81]

Of course these could all be coincidences of numbers, but as long as we measure things equally we have a baseline.  The weight given to the importance of damage and durability can change the outlook pretty quickly.  This is just trying to demonstrate a possible path to determining unit costs.

Beyond this you could even calculate the minimum number of attacks like above to force a 1/6th chance of losing models to bravery.  For example 5 PBs need to die to cause a loss on a 6, which means a considerable number of attacks.

[Brian Andrews]

Looking at some of the past strategies, I think it would be more likely that they would point or stat models based on what's selling and what isn't. Suddenly that unpopular model that hasn't been selling well gets some good stats and becomes flavour of the month. 

As for cheapness, I believe that it was produced and priced that way because GW knew they had been a little remix and didn't want to gouge the players that had stuck with the game. It doesn't feel to me like it will need to be an annual thing because players tend to change they army every 18 months or so so they use their old battle tomes and the general's handbook less.

[Spiney Norman]

If it was anything like the process for generating points values in wfb and 40k, there is this incredibly complicated dartboard in the depths of GW HQ. I believe the standard practice is to give three darts to the angriest member of staff you can find and point them in the general direction of the board, then add up the results of the three darts and divide the result by the size of the model's base in cm, then knock a few points off if it's the codex author's favourite army.

[Veterannoob]

On 8/18/2016 at 10:45 AM, Spiney Norman said:

If it was anything like the process for generating points values in wfb and 40k, there is this incredibly complicated dartboard in the depths of GW HQ. I believe the standard practice is to give three darts to the angriest member of staff you can find and point them in the general direction of the board, then add up the results of the three darts and divide the result by the size of the model's base in cm, then knock a few points off if it's the codex author's favourite army.

Spiney! Good to see you again. Btw, it's not a dartboard, it's one of those air pump machines they use to draw lottery numbers. Plus the occasional vial of hater tears 

[mmimzie]

The current AoS points actualy seem pretty good to me. There are definitly some winners and loser, but nothing is dramaticly terrible to me. Over all it looks really good. I've beat BCRs with my zombies which is a hard counter for me so i can't really complain. 

[Nico]

Quote

I've beat BCRs with my zombies which is a hard counter for me so i can't really complain. 

If anything, I'd say Zombros are the hard counter to BCR. The worst thing to throw under the hooves of BCR are low model count, high wound, high value models without Ward Saves (Executioners, Retributors, Varanguard), since they will lose so much value to the mortal wounds from the Thundertusks and Stonehorn impact hits. 

With Zombros, you lose just as many models from 6 arrow shots that wound as you do from a Thundertusk. Of course if you have the 5+ ward save going, then you're going to tarpit them even more. While your attacks are junk rend, you'll get a lot of models into contact and slowly dent the 3+ save monstrosities and presumably there's something else in the list to do damage.

[mmimzie]

1 hour ago, Nico said:

..... and presumably there's something else in the list to do damage.

Nah it's really just zombies and heros to buff said zombies. Very objective focused/Board control army. If i can't kill you i flud the map.

 

 

1 hour ago, Nico said:

While your attacks are junk rend, you'll get a lot of models into contact and slowly dent the 3+ save 

Actualy there is this brutal item they get that lets them reroll saves against none rending attacks. It's bonkers. Plus the halfing of all wounds. The amount of dice i have to throw to do anything?? at all... bleh.

 

So i see them as a hard counter because many of them can walk through my zombies no problem as they just don't do much, and the speed they can get is bad because the zombies have a problem with getting penned down at the gate. 

 

But lots of summoning and retreats, with 1 or 2 late game VDM attacks won the day pretty handily. Didn't kill much through.

[daedalus81]

Terrorgheists should do a number on the non-hero versions of thundertusks.  Stonehorns a little less so, obviously.