Serious question about points costs for units

[buffalozap]

Hello!

Does anyone know why units cost the points they do?

Like, for example, a unit of "whatevers" costs 100 points. Is there some way that the number 100 points is determined? I seriously want to know if there is some logic behind the system?

Anyone heard anything about this subject that can give some insight?

I am not complaining about the points costs of any units. I am not saying they are wrong. I am not saying they need to be changed. I am not offering to do things in a better way.

I am not satisfied with "they are what they are because smart GW people said so". I am curious, I want to understand the process of thinking that led to the way they currently are.

Thanks in advance!

Please no trolling, no flame wars, keep it civil, keep it classy folks!

[Bjarni St.]

They based it on the South Coast GT tournament pack (primarily, but supposedly they also looked at other community packs) and scaled it up by 20, so a 5 point unit in SCGT became 100 in GHB.

That was where they started - GW made their own adjustments. SCGT more or less arrived at their numbers by creating a baseline for what is a reasonable cost for a unit like e.g. Liberators and comparing other units to that, if they should cost more or less. The prices were then adjusted based on feedback and experience. Sylvaneth, Savage Orcs and BCR came out after GHB so they're all GW.

Ultimately though it always comes back to "GW said so". Not so much the smart part, they have a pretty appalling track record.

[buffalozap]

11 minutes ago, Bjarni St. said:

They based it on the South Coast GT tournament pack (primarily, but supposedly they also looked at other community packs) and scaled it up by 20, so a 5 point unit in SCGT became 100 in GHB.

That was where they started - GW made their own adjustments. SCGT more or less arrived at their numbers by creating a baseline for what is a reasonable cost for a unit like e.g. Liberators and comparing other units to that, if they should cost more or less. The prices were then adjusted based on feedback and experience. Sylvaneth, Savage Orcs and BCR came out after GHB so they're all GW.

Ultimately though it always comes back to "GW said so". Not so much the smart part, they have a pretty appalling track record.

ok so how did SCGT arrive at their values?

[Mohojoe]

They had a meeting with many of the guys who were running comped systems at the time and went through every list creating what they felt was a fair point system, this then was revised and edited with community feedback over several months.  I believe it was also heavily based on Mo's clash comp system if memory serves. Either way it started with people who were deep into the competition scene and it was revised through community input and extensive playtesting .

[Mohojoe]

The original threads are still on 'The Warhammer Forum'  if you would like to search for them (You may not be able to make a new account but you should still be able to browse)

[buffalozap]

3 minutes ago, Mohojoe said:

They had a meeting with many of the guys who were running comped systems at the time and went through every list creating what they felt was a fair point system, this then was revised and edited with community feedback over several months.  I believe it was also heavily based on Mo's clash comp system if memory serves. Either way it started with people who were deep into the competition scene and it was revised through community input.

any idea what this "fair points system" was based on? any indications of how these points were arrived at?

[Mohojoe]

7 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

any idea what this "fair points system" was based on? any indications of how these points were arrived at?

You would have to look at the topics, it was over a year ago and im about to head to work, If you havent found it later I can have a quick browse. 

[bottle]

Mo chose some approximate values for units based on their strength which led to Clash Comp. The guys who ran SCGT took those numbers and times by 5 to allow for further refinement and granularity (clash comp was a 20 point system, SCGT a 100 point system (+Side Boards)).

GW then took SCGT and times the values by 20 (again to allow further refinement and granularity), and when doing so they compared SCGT with all the other big comps at the time (Dan from Heelanhammer mentions that had a big spreadsheet to compare everything).

So, the points system started as an approximate gauge of power and has been refined by a year of tournament gaming on the UK scene. It could still do with further refinement but it is a great and very robust system in my opinion.

[BaldoBeardo]

If you're looking for the answer "there's a formula", you won't get it. Points are based on (essentially) an eyeball estimate relative to other units, followed by play testing to assess.
Much like people managed to do before the GHB and comp systems...


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[buffalozap]

34 minutes ago, bottle said:

Mo chose some approximate values for units based on their strength which led to Clash Comp. The guys who ran SCGT took those numbers and times by 5 to allow for further refinement and granularity (clash comp was a 20 point system, SCGT a 100 point system (+Side Boards)).

GW then took SCGT and times the values by 20 (again to allow further refinement and granularity), and when doing so they compared SCGT with all the other big comps at the time (Dan from Heelanhammer mentions that had a big spreadsheet to compare everything).

So, the points system started as an approximate gauge of power and has been refined by a year of tournament gaming on the UK scene. It could still do with further refinement but it is a great and very robust system in my opinion.

that is a wonderful answer, thank-you very much.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I dunno, there was a leak from the GW Design Studio a while back that explained how they choose points costs:

[Gaz Taylor]

3 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

If you're looking for the answer "there's a formula", you won't get it. Points are based on (essentially) an eyeball estimate relative to other units, followed by play testing to assess.
Much like people managed to do before the GHB and comp systems...


Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
 

Pretty much this. The people who came up and were involved with Mo Comp & SCGT Comp have been playing the game for years and got feed back from people who have been playing the game for years and came up with the numbers. GW took the systems and tweaked them, involved people who have been playing for years and took on some of their advice and released the Generals Handbook. Based upon some of the comments from the Warlords GT by some of the GW guys involved in the making of the book, they may look at revisiting the book and tweaking the points.

[Turragor]

I find it interesting that there's maybe a subtle division of opinion on this.

It's kind of an 'experience knows best' versus 'we can sort the points out better with maths' situation.

I love debates over little plastic men!

I sometimes check my hobbies and daily activities and marvel how far we've come.

How our ancestors, strong, hairy, sabretooth necklace'd and covered in bear furs, would scratch their heads. No more do we argue over where the best hunting grounds lie or how we would cross the mighty glacier. No!

 

[CoffeeGrunt]

It's also worth noting that buffing is hard to quantify mathematically, as context is key. For example, an ability that gives +1 to Hit is decent for Zombies, a marginal increase in hitting power, not all that scary. However, +1 to Hit for Spirit Hosts means they can put out double the Mortal Wounds, on average. With no control over variables like that, you can't really quantify it in an accurate manner, and eyeballing it is the only way to go.

You also have deliberate crutch units at times to create a theme in an army. For example I'd say Skeleton Archers are a touch overcosted for their damage potential, but at the same time they provide ranged attacks to a force that utterly lacks them, which increases their value noticeably.

[buffalozap]

On ‎11‎/‎14‎/‎2016 at 5:09 AM, CoffeeGrunt said:

It's also worth noting that buffing is hard to quantify mathematically, as context is key. For example, an ability that gives +1 to Hit is decent for Zombies, a marginal increase in hitting power, not all that scary. However, +1 to Hit for Spirit Hosts means they can put out double the Mortal Wounds, on average. With no control over variables like that, you can't really quantify it in an accurate manner, and eyeballing it is the only way to go.

You also have deliberate crutch units at times to create a theme in an army. For example I'd say Skeleton Archers are a touch overcosted for their damage potential, but at the same time they provide ranged attacks to a force that utterly lacks them, which increases their value noticeably.

actually the bonuses to hit, wound, bonus damage modifiers, mortal wound generation and the like is the easy stuff to quantify.  The hard thing is command abilities and the like that allow things like extra movement for X units, or rerolls for leadership tests and similar, those are where the fudge factor eyeballing really turns up.

[CoffeeGrunt]

8 minutes ago, buffalozap said:

actually the bonuses to hit, wound, bonus damage modifiers, mortal wound generation and the like is the easy stuff to quantify.  The hard thing is command abilities and the like that allow things like extra movement for X units, or rerolls for leadership tests and similar, those are where the fudge factor eyeballing really turns up.

Not really though. As I noted, a +1 to Hit can combo with other abilities to be far more potent, e.g. if a unit gets Mortal Wounds on 6s. This means you have to guess how likely they are to be using it in conjunction with such units, versus just buffing say, a Zombie unit.

[buffalozap]

On ‎11‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 7:39 AM, CoffeeGrunt said:

Not really though. As I noted, a +1 to Hit can combo with other abilities to be far more potent, e.g. if a unit gets Mortal Wounds on 6s. This means you have to guess how likely they are to be using it in conjunction with such units, versus just buffing say, a Zombie unit.

A unit that provides a buff applying a +1 to hit or wound modifier is an example of the thing I was describing that is a difficult ability to apply a points cost for in a purely mathematically objectively calculated way. When units generate their own bonuses to hit it is a lot easier to quantify when those bonuses will apply and integrate them into the calculations.

 

That isn't to say that it isn't possible to make such an ability "balanced" in the sense that where that category of ability appears on a units list of abilities that unit will cost X more points or alternatively the cost in points for that unit will be scaled by a multiplier of Y. That would at least give a measure of control over those variables and ensure that they are treated uniformly through out the game system.  Discussions about what X and Y ought to be among intelligent peoples in charge of the balance of the game should occur and imho be transparent and open to community feedback.

 

Hard isn't impossible. Complex isn't a reason not to try.

[CoffeeGrunt]

I never said we shouldn't try, I merely pointed out the difficulties in doing so.