In short:
the point cost of a unit reflects
a) each characteristic 'as is'
b) each characteristic combined with the others from the same unit
c) each characteristic combined with the others from the same army
explanation (point values for the examples are just made up)
a) is the easiest one, so much of one characteristic, so many points e.g. a
CAF value of +3 could cost 5 points and a CAF value of +8 could cost 50
points
b) A characteristic 'as is' leads to unbalance, because each characteristic
has 'sinergies' with other characteristics, thus, they have to be considered
in relation with the whole unit. Typical combinations Move+CAF,
Move+PowerfulWeapons, FireDistance+TSM, ToHit+AttackDice+UnitSize, etc...
e.g. giving a bike unit with high CAF a movement of 30 cm may cost 25 points
for each bike, while that cost would be exagerate if given to a Thudd Gun
and underestimated for a warlord titan.
c) Considering a unit as a single entity is also unbalancing (unless your
whole army is that unit, of course), because there are sinergies and
limitations within an army which would not be accounted anywwhere. From one
side, a characteristic (or specific combo of characteristics) that is
limited for one army should be more expensive that the same one for another
army that excel for that case. On the other hand, extra army
restrictions/benefits/sinergies at army level should be considered
e.g. An army that lacks cheap units may find its cheaper units more
expensive than the same units for an army full of cannon fodder and
viceversa (that's the case of imperial guard) or better said, armies with
high numbers tend to have (extra)expensive quality units and armies with low
numbers tend to have cheap crowded units not so cheap (think of scouts for
Space Marines or Squats). For the other case, as an example, Chaos units can
have several characteristics improved with some Chaos cards, and thus, those
characteristics may become cheaper or expensive depending on them.
we could also consider a d) factor, which is basically 'fluff' but we could
argue if that is included indirectly in c) or not.
I'm afraid you only consider a) and partially b) but not c).
>From: "Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Kai Elfers" <kai.elfers_at_...>
>Reply-To: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>To: <netepic_at_yahoogroups.com>
>Subject: AW: [NetEpic ML] Dark Angel Ravenwing vs. Saim-Hann Wind Rider
>Host
>Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 20:13:11 +0200
>
>Hi nils,
>
>
>
>i do not know if the wind rider discussion is old or not, and honest, i do
>not care. Fact is that all tabletops have a point-system zu create armies.
>And i am sure that points should be an indicator for the balance between
>both sides in a battle. If you play 3.000 points against 3.000 points, then
>the battle will be fair at all. If not, then you can forget the
>points-system and you have to think about something else. But if i reduce
>the costs for a quantity (such as the wind rider host), then i have to make
>the same with all. Either the points are the "master" to have a battle in
>balance or not! But i think a better example for this discussion is the
>tempest vs. shadowsword comparison. 6 tempest are 400 !!! points cheaper
>then 6 shadowsword. And do not tell me that the unit statistic from the
>shadowswords are 400 points better! Do not misunderstand me. I think you
>have made great deals by increasing the costs for the thunderhawk, drop
>pods
>are not for free anymore. You have to pay the price for titan weapons (it
>could not be equal if you arm a titan with a vortex or a gatling blaster)
>and many more. But sadly you also have brought many thing imbalances, too.
>In my opinion the greatest fault you have made is that you do not only
>compare the unit statistics to give the unit a point's value, you make
>differences between the races too. The best example for this is the squat
>and ork land raider. The ork land raider is 100 cheaper, because?...because
>they have a worse moral value??? I do not think, that this is considered by
>GW as they invent the points-system. In this case the points are not
>"master" anymore and in a fight you have no balance.
>
>
>
>Regards kai
>
> _____
>
>Von:
>sentto-1142785-2040-1183361083-kai.elfers=web.de_at_...
>[mailto:sentto-1142785-2040-1183361083-kai.elfers=web.de_at_...
>o.com] Im Auftrag von nils.saugen_at_...
>Gesendet: Montag, 2. Juli 2007 09:10
>An: netepic_at_yahoogroups.com
>Betreff: RE: [NetEpic ML] Dark Angel Ravenwing vs. Saim-Hann Wind Rider
>Host
>
>
>
>Aha..
>
>The old Wind Rider discussion appears once again... You have to take
>into account the entire army list. Not only compare two units from two
>different lists. These types of diffrences can be found throughout all
>army lists. BTW the Wind Rider host should be a basic Eldar unit and
>not, a Saim-Hann special unit.
>
>Nils
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: netepic_at_yahoogroups <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com> .com
>[mailto:netepic_at_yahoogroups <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com> .com] On
>Behalf
>Of Kai Elfers
>Sent: 1. juli 2007 09:17
>To: netepic_at_yahoogroups <mailto:netepic%40yahoogroups.com> .com
>Subject: [NetEpic ML] Dark Angel Ravenwing vs. Saim-Hann Wind Rider Host
>
>ok, we are talking about to companies of a codex amy, right?
>
>the normal cost value of 2 land speeder and 1 attack bike detachment is
>575 points. if i take the ravenwing, then i pay only 500 points, 75
>points less then normal and a get a master of ravenwing. i think this
>is great at all.
>
>the normal cost of 2 vyper squads and 3 jetbike squads are 1100 points.
>if i take the Saim-Hann Wind Rider Host i pay only 650. 450 !!!! points
>less then normal. ok, they have no master of ravenwing, but this stand
>in no relation due to other codex advantages.
>
>i think you destroy the points relation between the armies and the
>points were made for having 2 armies in balance. you can not reduce the
>costs for a company by 40 percent!!!
>
>To unsubscribe send e-mail to: netepic-unsubscribe
><mailto:netepic-unsubscribe%40egroups.com> _at_egroups.com
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
Received on Mon Jul 02 2007 - 22:53:45 UTC