Pendrake's Fighting Value Formula Draft 3 Step 1: Add all the favorable stat numbers. Brave+Range+Attacks+2Hit+2Wound+Rend number+Damage+Abs+Opt = A On combat models use the range number. On shooting models divide the missile range number by 2. On models with multiple lines add up the maximum possible number of attacks the model could legally use. On models with multiple lines use the highest damage number. For Any number written as N+ use the following: 6+ =1; 5+ =2; 4+ =3; 3+ =4; 2+ =5; 1+ =6 (7 minus N) For the Rend value use the magnitude but ditch the - minus sign. (math symbol is "|N|" ) Add 1-5 points for special Abilities (5 if it is really good; 1 if it is positive but meh...) Add 1-5 points for helpful Options (5 if it is really good; 1 if it is positive but meh...) Step 2: Add Wounds + Save + Move together = B Step 3: Multiply the the results of the first two steps. A x B = nnn Step 4: Divide nnn by M. M is the minimum # of models listed on the warscroll (usually 1, 5, or 10)._______________________________________________________ Short form: ( B+Ra+A+2H+2W+Re+D+Ab+Op ) x ( W + M+S ) = Fighting Value Fighting Value / M = Points Per Model ( but round up if there is any decimal )
What is a battalion? I know that there are some sample ones given at the end of each compendium but how do you form other kinds?
Draft Three: Some Sample Values _____________________ 28 Javelin Skinks 32 Bowpipespitter Skinks 130 Kroxigor with Maul 760 Oldblood on a ColdOne
Not sure why the first two make any difference. I will bring every Lizard scroll and I would expect any opponent bring all of theirs. But the third one I guess is a no death stars rule? That makes some sense. Fourth item, Wounds per army is just a vastly simple formula consisting of: Fighting value per model = 1 x Wounds If something rudimentary and simple is wanted, what about: Fighting Value per model = Wounds x Maximum Possible Damage in a turn (using all resources) ??
Well in the end when you create an algorithm, you use your own intuition until you have something you believe looks good, and take it to the public What I had looked good on some units but skews other, example: Skink 8 points Saurus 18 points Temple Guard 43 points As you can see this does not scale correctly between Saurus and Temple Guard.
Right - the entries at the end of the armybook. As for 'forming news ones,' I reckon that you don't. Those look to be there to specifically give you a reason to take iur less-powerful entries. You don't form them for the same reason that you didn't take Salamanders as Core in 8th. The entry doesn't exist. Therefore, the difference between battalions and warscrolls is pretty clear. If you opt to bring everything that you've got, then that's fine... so long as your opponent agrees to do the same. In a two-player battle, lists would be structured something like this: 3 Battalions, 7 Warscrolls. The parameters could be anything - which, to me, is the beauty of this system - but would typically adhere: 60 wounds per unit max, 580 wounds per army max. The wound values are up to the players, but these two parameters are going to define each army's versatility. There ought to be some debate as to whether handlers/crew count as belonging to a unit. Since they can be targeted and apparently move freely, I'd think they're independent. 3 Battalions, 7 Warscrolls, 60 Wounds per Unit max, 580 Wounds per army Max - this ought to be a pretty enormous battle! Let's see: So, 1 Skink Patrol - Skink Chief (4W) - 25 Skinks (25W) - 25 Skinks (25W) - 8 Terradons (24W) 1 Skink Patrol - Skink Chief (4W) - 25 Skinks (25W) - 25 Skinks (25W) - 8 Terradons (24W) 1 Saurus Host - 1 Saurus Oldblood (7W) - 50 Saurus Warriors (50W) - 50 Saurus Warriors (50W) - 50 Saurus Warriors (50W) - 30 Temple Guard (30W) 1 Slann (7W) 1 Troglodon (12W) 60 Temple Guard (60W) 6 Razordons (18W) 20 Handlers (20W) 8 Ripperdactyl Riders (24W) 8 Ripperdactyl Riders (24W) Some notes: Pretty big battle here. Despite the example above, a 'normal' battle may have 4 or 5 warscrolls for every battalion - that would probably be pretty entertaining, and not as redundant as what I've posted. What I've got up there is probably a terrible list to field against something of equal size, but you get the idea. Take 2: 1 Battalion, 5 Warscrolls, 40 Wounds per Unit max, 225 Wounds per army max. 1 Skink Patrol - Skink Chief (4W) - 40 Skinks (40W) - 40 Skinks (40W) - 8 Terradons (24W) 1 Slann (7W) 40 Temple Guard (40W) 1 Stegadon (10W) 1 Bastiladon (8W) 8 Ripperdactyl Riders (24W) Battalions appear to be the meat of most armies - its 'Core' choices. Smaller battles could field just one battalion with more warscrolls, eliminate them entirely, etc. I'd say that it's a good idea to shoot for at least 75% of the max wounds per army for the sake of Sudden Death, but I'll need to play it more. A lot of players would likely see that 'wounds per army' as the new overall points value and fill it entirely, which may or may not be a bad idea. It's mostly there to keep single-model warscrolls/multi-wound infantry relevant so that people don't run away with absurd amounts of infantry, but still field a decent amount of infantry. I might try implementing a wounds-per-battalion cut-off too, although that's a bit overreaching and redundant. Still, this method appears to work.
This might be ^^^ close to right. Could two temple guard take down four saurus but usually fall to five saurus? [ 86 versus 72 -----/------ 86 versus 90 ]
Really? I felt the point difference between saurus and temple guard, and also skink and temple guard to be too big.
I don't have the skillz for any of this. (large number of stats added together) x (2 or three stats added together) = skews the equation to the small number of stats side. I think the only safe small number is wounds, possibly with a "to save" coefficient. This would be painful, but each stat could be modified with an arbitrary weighting. eg wounds x chance of saving (writes itself) x ? + to hit score x 1 (if you can't hit, you don't wound) + to wound score x 0.8 (same reason) + rend x 0.4 (if you don't wound you don't rend) etc. Movement should possibly considered as threat range (move + range) (and given a low weighting to compensate for ranged troops having a longer range) I guess the core stats for any model could be grouped into: durability (wounds, saves and bravery) threat (threat range and skill to hit) Use a modifier for ranged threat (which is only 1 attack per game turn) vs melee threat (2 attacks per game turn) if it is a shooty and fighty unit they might need to add them (3 attacks per turn) damage (wound and rend) If we get a formula for all three of those, we can play test to determine what weighting to give to each row. Once we can semi balance the core stats for units which don't use magic etc, we can turn to the trickier ones / heroes and try to shoe horn them in with some more magic numbers. Focus on skinks, chameleons, saurus, TG, terradons, ripperdactyls for now? (and save the monsters and heroes for another day)
It did not seem all that bad because I was hoping/aiming for a system with generally bigger numbers. But I think one of the flaws in the old system is slaves-rats-gobthings-skinks all being 1,2, or 3 points. The little stuff needed to be more spread out, which meant the bigger stuff needed to range further up the scale as well.
I think this is a good idea. My first three overly[?] complex stabs at this were built thus: Durability, durability and mobility X (multiplied by) Everything else Then since that resulted in some spectacularly large numbers - divide by some [cleverly?chosen] factor to get the magnitudes down.
I am sure the real math majors are chortling at the puny efforts in this thread thus far. I just had a crazy brainwave though: What if no two models of the same type were allowed to cost the same points? 1st Javelin Skink = 1pt 2nd Javelin Skink = 2pts - - ~~~ - - 22nd Javelin Skink = 22pts 23rd Javelin Skink = 23pts At some point the correct average price for a Skink will be paid. Each player will develop a sense of what that price level is over time with play experience. With bigger things, use bigger numbers, & bigger increments: 1st Stegadon = 100pts 2nd Stegadon = 200pts - - ~~~ - - 12th Stegadon = 1200pts 13th Stegadon = 1300pts
On first inspection, that sounds brilliant. Setting the unit price and increments will need a balancing system of some kind.
I only did two examples. I will have a go at expanding it further. (edit) @spawning of Bob - and I have, see next,
I think the approach you guys (and pretty much everyone trying to balance AoS) is taking is backwards. You're throwing darts at a wall, then trying to fit a dart board to the pattern. What do balanced armies look like? If you had several actual examples of balanced armies, then you could answer the question "what makes these armies balanced?" Once you know that, you could come up wit ha formula that promotes balance and dissuades imbalance. Currently, it seems everyone is just coming up with randomish equations and then looking at the results and using their gut to see if it "looks balanced." Really, until you actually play some (lots of) games of AoS, you're trying to apply your idea of balanced in the 8th edition system to AoS. AoS plays differently than 8th, I'm not sure the same ideas of balance will apply. Why should a points system favor taking "core" (a concept that no longer exists)? Why should it stop someone from taking lots of characters? Why should it stop someone from taking an obscene amount of infantry? Is there balance to be found between one player with lots of Dragons/Monsters/Characters and another player with waaaay more infantry? I don't know what the right answer is, I don't think it's going to be a WHFB style points system. If anything, it's going to look more like the Swedish Comp points system. AoS revolves around the synergies (abilities) of the models, so any formula you come up with that is primarily focused on the base stats is going to fall apart pretty quick. Are models priced for their non-synergistic effectiveness, or for their synergistic effectiveness? Will model point costs change depending on which other models you take? Will you need a degree in mathematics to build an army? I don't think points are the way to go to balance AoS, which is a shame because I really like list building. But list building doesn't exist in AoS. It's more about what is in your collection and a tactical deployment phase. I wonder if a more KoW style system would work for balance. Maybe something like: Troop = unit of 1 - 19 models (or 1 - 5 cav units, 1 - 3 monst. cav)* Regiment = unit of 20 - 29 models (or 6 - 10 cav units, 4 - 6 monst cav)* Horde = unit of 30 - 40 models (or 10 - 20 cav units, 7 - 12 monst cav)* Unit size is capped at 40 (or 20 for cav, 12 for monst cav)* [* I'm basing these ranges off of the limits that the Warscrolls use to give them advanced abilities as they get bigger.... ] Troops, Monsters, War Machines, and Heros are limited to the number of Regiments and Hordes you take. 1 Regiment lets you take 2 Troop choices and 1 of (Monster, Hero, or War Machine) 1 Horde lets you take 4 Troop choices and 1 Monster and 1 Hero and 1 War Machine 1 Regiment costs 1 point 1 Horde costs 3 points. Then you can say, lets play a 6 point game, or something like that. This is assuming that you favor Infantry over Monsters/Characters. If you like characters more you could flip the script and say something like: Each Hero you take lets you take 2 Troop choices, and 1 of (War Machine, Regiment, Horde) Each Monster you take lets you take 4 Troop choices, and 1 War Machine, 1 Regiment, and 1 Horde Heros cost 3 points Monsters cost 1 point. It all depends on what kind of game you want to play and do you want to play the same game as your opponent. Maybe the above two "systems" could work together like Warmachien and Hordes. Could one player use the Infantry-based system and another player use the Character-based system and still get a balanced game? I don't know! Maybe AoS needs some sort of "minimum number of drops" rule to stop Sudden Death Shenanigans (Ie, Kroak + Oxyotl or Nagash + Summoning Spam) You could still end up with Suddon Death, but then the game you are playing would be "a small band of heroes vs an army". Something like 7 point game, minimum 10 drops. Will this make balanced games? I have no idea! I've only played 1 game of AoS. I don't really know what a balanced army in AoS looks like! I have a feeling it doesn't look anything like a balanced army in 8th, though.
Rising Costs Points System Redonkulous Models 1st Dreadsaurian = 250pts 2nd Dreadsaurian = 400pts; increment is 150 Large Monsters & Character Mounts 1st Stegadon = 100pts 2nd Stegadon = 200pts; increment is 100 Ogre-Sized Monsters 1st Kroxigor = 20 pts 2nd Kroxigor = 30 pts; increment is 10 Cavalry Models 1st Horned One = 10pts 2nd Horned One = 15pts; increment is 5 Big Infantry Models 1st Temple Guard = 2pts 2nd Temple Guard = 4pts; increment is 2 Minor Infantry Models 1st Javelin Skink = 1pt 2nd Javelin Skink = 2pts; increment is 1pt Notes: For now this is all LM centric @spawning of Bob - I feel like this is only half the answer but I also feel like I am onto something. @hdctambien - Feel free to post theory, formulae, points derived from going WackBards instead of backwards... Gotta start somewhere. But I am cool with starting with post-battle box scores; then setting up a formula based on the results. Feel free to conduct some benchmarking battles, such as: Saurus versus Thundertusk. Give one side a Thundertusk and give the otherside a bunch of Saurus. Which wins? If the Saurus win, take away 5 Saurus and re-fight...rinse repeat, rinse repeat.
I'm with the HDCTambien point of view that play testing will need to take over to sort out the balancing models. Frustratingly, the whole army synergy thing is that my army might use models from several factions (for no good fluff reason). Generals should be forced to write army fluff before they can have bizarre alliances. The escalating points model will favour MSU builds, especially with wounds and bravery only affecting units individually. 2 razordons and two sets of handlers running together survive everything better than the logical combined unit. I played Vs Son of Bob - with proxied WE. We used the "as used by some GW stores" model which discounts larger units and a 75ish point limit. i looked like I was going to smash him until turn 3. Then he won by almost exactly the same number of wounds as he got from his discount on 3 units of 15 glade guard riders. (ie about 15 model's) Sounds like it was a good match (apart from the discount). When my brain is clearer I will "cost" those two armies using the Rising Costs Points System as you have it above. I suspect your cavalry is over costed, so I will "balance" the lists by using a different cost for Cav and see what we get.
@spawning of Bob - when the brain comes back to clear: could you calculate the cavalry as written up and with whatever mod you decide on?