WHFB Pts Values for AoS? - Warhammer 40K Fantasy
 

Welcome to Librarium Online!

Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!

Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!


Register Now!

User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 40
  1. #1
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Pts Values for AoS

    This project is now complete
    -to the extent that I have posted values for every faction currently available as either free PDF downloads from GW, Forgeworld, or as Battletome lists. The exception would be named characters, as many named characters have very powerful special rules which do not "play well" with the formula (explained later). As such, I am editing this initial post to explain where the project has found itself, and the theory behind it.
    The Idea: Making AoS play like 8th
    As you probably know, Age of Sigmar is lacking two major elements of all previous Warhammer games; firstly, they have removed the traditional "rank and file" regiment from the game, and all models now move in 40k style 'blobs'. Secondly, and more importantly, they have removed any type of balancing mechanic from the game, including the points values. Without these balancing mechanics, players were left on their own to figure out how to create equally matched forces, and while careful discussion with your opponent could sometimes "ballpark" a fair game, it was hardly a foolproof system. Other players adopted a system which balanced by wounds, and that had it's own drawbacks as soon as you realized that a 2W model is rarely as powerful as a pair of 1W troops, and so on.

    If I was going to return AoS to the style of "traditional" games of Warhammer, the first thing to tackle would be assigning points costs. This is important not only for playing AoS in the fashion of older editions, but also for playing AoS in general. The game seemed to be begging for a balance mechanic.
    You are probably aware that AoS has done away with the complex charts and tables from previous editions - models now Hit and Wound on flat, unmodified numbers. This makes the "math hammer" for these values very linear, and ultimately, this is what allowed me to make a reasonably balanced formula to determine points values. The formula itself is quite complex, but at it's most basic, I determined the average stat values To Hit, To Wound, Rend, and Save and assigned them a points value of 7. From there, I tested and "Math Hammered" every warscroll in every faction, with every wargear option - against this average. By reversing from the end of the combat with both sides at 0 Wounds, I was able to determine how many of the 7pt "baseline" models it would take to destroy any particular Warscroll unit.

    Next came adding the classic "rank and file" elements of the previous editions. This has absolutely no bearing on AoS games - it is possible to use only the points values - but it helps to make the game palatable to veteran players, and also polishes some of the more unusual elements of the (very sparse) AoS rules. Rather than creating entirely new rules however, I wanted to use AoS as a foundation and work from there. The rules I have written - which I call the "Realmgate Legions" - are guidelines for how units would interact if they were deployed in rigid formations during a normal game of AoS. The units still move, fight, and interact as exactly as they would in the basic game, and no new rules are added, or existing rules changed in any way except to restrict players from making certain choices that would normally be allowed in the core ruleset.

    Why 'Realmgate Legions' and not '9th Age' or a similar '8.5' reboot?
    Initially, I was working on a sort of 8.5 - a way to give 8th edition everything that we were promised in 9th. However, I saw that this was ultimately a dead-end. 8th edition is over, and nothing new will be released within that framework. GW has moved on to AoS now, and if we want to continue playing a supported and official game, we'll need to move on to AoS as well. If you want to play an unofficial edition such as 9th Age, that is fine - but why not just continue playing 8th? Both systems are unsupported and unofficial, and at the moment, 8th is more common and more widely understood than any fan-created offshoot.

    I can determine the points values of any new Warscrolls released by Games Workshop in the future, and I intend to. When new models are released by GW, those of us playing with the AoS/Realmgate rules will be able to utilize those models, in exactly the same way we did when the End Times models were released during 8th. Importantly, the 'Realmgate Legion' rules do not break or violate any of the official Age of Sigmar rules. They only impose restrictions. If a person familiar with AoS games were to watch a game being played with the 'RGL' rules, they would not see anything "illegal", but would instead ask why players are not making particular choices or utilizing certain facets of the AoS rules, or why they are maintaining these rigid formations. A player might ask the same thing when two gamers choose to balance their forces by Wounds, or impose some kind of "thematic" restriction for a scenario. For this reason, the 'Realmgate Legion' rules should be accepted in official GW hobby stores. This was hugely important to me, because I want the 'Realmgate' rules to spread and grow. I want to see veteran gamers return to the fold, and I want to give new gamers a system that has enough tactical depth to not go stale. If formatted like the AoS core rules, the RGL rules are only 3 additional pages of content, and add a great deal to the game. I think that they are certainly worth giving a try - especially if you are a returning Fantasy player.

    Reading the Entries
    The warscrolls are presented in the same order that they appear in their PDFs or Battletomes. When reading them, the following rules apply:

    1) If a particular wargear choice is not shown, assume that it is included in the cost. For example, a warscroll might say that a model is armed with either an Axe or a Flail, but if all that my entry says is: "Model - 10pts" then it means that the model will cost 10pts regardless of what wargear options you give it.

    2) "Choose One Below" means exactly what it says - choose a model from the list below. This is common for units who have multiple types of wargear or options, many of which have differing points values. Some units also have a upgrades that are available only to certain numbers of models in the unit. These are not priced in addition, (unless you see a +Xpts) but rather, just "choose" that model as part of the unit.

    3) Use common sense. If a warscroll describes a model as being armed with a "either a Chaos Axe or Chaos Flail" then do not assume that if you pay the +Xpts/Model for a Chaos Axe, you will get to keep the flail as well. Come on guys, use your heads.

    Limitations of the Formula or How Balanced IS It?
    Unfortunately, I can't claim that my formula for determining the points values is perfect (and as a disclaimer, no system ever is or will be). I can say that I applied the formula equally to all warscrolls across all of the factions, so if - for example - Wizards are somehow overpriced, then all Wizards will be overpriced.

    Known concerns with my formula mostly stem from "non-attack" abilities. Things like buffing/nerfing abilities, auras, and so forth. This applies both to models like the Engine of the Gods and Warshrine, who apply buffs in a large area and target multiple units, but also to units - who get buffs by being near a certain other models, such as the bonuses that many Tomb King scrolls get when they are near a Necrotect.
    One "fix" for this is to simply overlook it. With the Necrotect example, I charged players as if this model would be going into combat, however, putting it into combat means potentially losing it and the buffs that come with it. If a player chooses to hide the Necrotect safely behind the lines, then they are being assessed points for combat abilities that they are not utilizing, and I doubt that the minor buffs handed out are worth the points cost of that entire model not attacking.

    Another concern is that some attacks are very nebulous. There are some attacks which hit every unit within a certain radius, or jump from one unit to another unit in range (Skaven lightning attacks, for example). Other attacks target every model in a unit. I have no way of knowing how many units will be in range, or how many models will be in a unit - so I had to estimate. I assessed all units by the same values (X units per radius in inches, or about 10 models per unit) but it's obviously not as perfect as the 1:1 ratio used for determining price of models in combat.

    Because of the mathhammer nature of the formula, all that I was able to account for were direct kills with weapons - missile weapons and in melee, and spells. I did impose a 10% "movement adjustment" to models with M7+ to represent the advantage of being able to move slightly faster than their enemy. I also added scaling points for weapons that have more than the typical 1" of reach.

    Preliminary tests indicate that the formula should be quite well ball-parked, and to be honest, I see the possibility for under/over priced units as a facet of the strategy in the game. Otherwise, there would be no reason to explore taking different units beyond just "I like how this one looks, etc". Finding particularly powerful combos that let you get more "bang or your buck" out of a unit or two, is encouraged. If anything seems truly devastatingly broken, let me know. I'll be using these rules as these points values in my own games of AoS and therefore will be updating them if I catch anything unusual.

    OKAY - POINTS VALUES ARE WHAT EVERYONE ASKED FOR: NOW USE THEM!

    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; January 4th, 2016 at 12:16.
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  2. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Finished Faction List!

    The points-value posts for all of the factions, in order of completion. These factions are all completed, pending only intensive playtesting and the addition/inclusion of their Named characters. Points are listed for all Warscrolls currently available from Games-Workshop, all the way up through the current Battletome publications. I will try to complete any new factions as they are added or updated.

    Brettonia
    Warriors of Chaos
    Vampire Counts
    Tomb Kings
    Skaven
    Orcs and Goblins
    Ogre Kingdoms
    High Elves
    The Empire
    The Dwarfs
    Dark Elves
    Wood Elves
    Beastmen
    Daemons of Chaos
    Lizardmen / Battletome: Seraphon
    Battletome: Sigmarites
    Battletome: Khorne Bloodbound
    FW: Legion of Azorgh
    FW: Tamurkhan Host, and Battletome: Everchosen
    Battletome: FyreSlayers

    "Realmgate Legion" Rules

    -The 'Realmgate Legion' is my answer to the "8.5" rulesets coming out all across the web. This 3-page set of rules is intended to organize the AoS rules into regimented, "rank-and-file" gaming, with Victory Points and similar conditions that we are used to from previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy, but in a way that fits comfortably within the existing framework of 'Age of Sigmar'. As the RGL rules do not add any special rules, it should be acceptable to use them at your FLGS or GW store without earning the ire of the redshirts. The RGL rules are the same sort of "player agreement" that many gamers have already made when determining how to balance their games.
    You can use the points values above with or without the 'Realmgate Legion' rules, just like your group can play the 'Realmgate Legion' rules without choosing to utilize the points values.
    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; February 5th, 2016 at 17:56.
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  4. #3
    ISIS Secret Agent Squishy mpdscott's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Domicile 6-DSt G-Town 3216
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1,875
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    332 (x7)

    Cap, I didn't read much of your initial post, but it seems that no matter what anyone does, GW have screwed Warhammer Fantasy into the ground, and it is irredeemably unrecoverable.
    It'd be good to know why they hated their firstborn so much, that they crashed it off the cliff of the End Times and left it a vegetable in a story so boring and flavorless that its become a warpstorm-ed version of its younger sibling 40K...
    Mysterious Member of the ANZAC Clan

  5. Remove Advertisements
    Librarium-Online.com
    Advertisements
     

  6. #4
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    After some thought, this might not be the end of it for assigning points to AoS. In all actuality, an 8th edition [email protected] would be just as doomed against a Chaos Warrior. By all rights, Chaos Warriors are drastically under-priced in all other editions. So why take [email protected] at all, even in 8th?

    Tarpits.

    I completely forgot about it. Just because the [email protected] no longer gain any benefit from fighting in ranks in AoS doesn't mean that they can't hold a line. In fact, in AoS, it's the total opposite effect - you never Flee. You always hold, you just crumble, a bit like Undead. So everything has effectively become a Skeleton, or Zombie.

    Sure, one Warrior is going to kill 16 [email protected], but it's going to take him 28 rounds of combat to do it. Even in a match where battle is joined on T1 (rare, if not impossible) you only need to hold him 12 rounds at the most. And if you only need to hold him 12 rounds, you really only need 6-7 [email protected] to keep him tied in one place. Just 30pts of Brets could freeze a Chaos Warrior for the entire game. And that makes more sense as to why a Chaos Warrior in 8th costs far less than he really should.

    I'll give some more thought as to how I could adjust the formula to account for this phenomenon. It might, however, just be a fact of life that there are two (or even more) "tiers" of unit types; the "they cost what they cost" horde-type tarpit units, and the "adjusted for inflation" elite regiments.

    Funny thing, really - this is something that the devs of previous editions of WHFB already knew.
    Guess I learn something every day, huh?
    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; November 22nd, 2015 at 06:20.

  7. #5
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Okay, so the system is not quite perfect.
    The trouble with simply capping the "rounds to kill" at a certain number, was that after that limit, the only thing which affected the points cost of the unit was it's ability to keep killing more stuff. Not a good fix. So in the end, I decided that I would add a small raise in points (20% of the damage per round) for every additional round after that cut off. This means that units which could potentially "out last" a full game of combat against an "average" opponent, will now still have to pay for their added survivability, even once it becomes "overkill".

    Where the "flaw" comes in, are where two units have the same "kill rate" against the average opponent, but different rates against each other. Notably, this happens with the Chaos Warrior and the Knight of the Realm. They cost an identical amount of points because they both kill an average of .55 models per turn, wear 4+ armor, have Bravery 6, and 2W. However, the Chaos Warrior achieves these kills by having Rend1, and the Knight achieves these kills by having a profile comprised of three attacks (1 rider, 2 horse). It takes 4 rounds for the Warrior to kill the Knight, and 5 rounds to for the Knight to kill the Warrior. On face value, this looks unfair. However in practice, it means that both units have specialized targets. Knights are best when used to slaughter stuff on the softer side of average - Rend is worthless against units without armor, but that's where the extra attacks really shine. Warriors are best used to kill bigger stuff than average, where their extra Rend is more useful. Just like in 8th.

    I also have more news!
    1) I'm working on setting the formula up so that I (and perhaps, eventually others) can simply type in statlines and effects and be able to generally get the entire value of weapons and so forth. Without having to do the math every time.

    2) I have been grinding on the math for a few of the factions already, and plan to play a few test games. Part of these games will also include new "Regimental Combat" style rules. The idea here being to bring AoS more in line with what we were promised for a "9th edition".
    There are lots of people (notably the '9th Age' guys) who are working on creating a sort of 8.5 ruleset, usually focused on polishing the rules from 8th, incorporating FAQs and common house-rules fixes, and some of the ETC stuff (in the case of 9th Age, which is also rewriting all Army Lists).
    I was working on that as well, and might still return to it. However, the one thing that has put a damper on it all: AoS is here to stay, and is the only version that GW is supporting. New factions like the Sigmarites are going to be AoS-only. New models for any existing armies are going to have AoS style Warscrolls. If you want to keep playing Fantasy with up-to-date GW releases, you're going to be playing AoS.
    To that end, my rules are going to be supplementary to the core AoS rules. They will utilize the new points costs, but also answer certain FAQ type questions that have come up (do you need a Zombie regiment to know 'Summon Zombies', etc) as well as other "house fixes" that players have adopted, and they will be written to return the game from "40k-style blobs" to the "regiment in square" formations that we've been playing with since day 1.
    My rules will not be extensive. In the design language of AoS, they are meant to be small, probably no more than 4 pages, and easy to implement. Interestingly, they should be playable at GW stores, as they are not a different/competing ruleset and use nothing "unofficial" in regards to stats. Players are free to balance their games as they wish - if they choose to use my points values, then they may - if they wish to keep their units ordered and make "gentlemanly" agreements regarding how those units will move and fight - then they may. I can see no reason why any GW manager would nix these rules any more than they would have nixxed players agreeing (amongst themselves) to use Swedish or ETC comp in their games.
    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; January 4th, 2016 at 11:10.
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  8. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    1 (x1)

    Cap,

    As mentioned, please keep it simple.
    I am looking forward to read !!!!!

    Kaznak

  9. #7
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Bretonnia

    Okay, as proof that yes, the formulas are done and dusted, I have the full points values for the Bretonnian army. I left the Named Characters out, and will be doing so for all of the books - let's face it, the named characters in AoS are ridiculous. Also, for dumb rules like the 'For the Lady!' on the Grail Knights (raise a cup aloft and shout, "For the Lady!" and you get to reroll your attacks) I assume that you always get that rule (more sensible, but you can still yell if you want).

    Bretonnian Lord = 280pts
    Pegasus, +10pts

    Paladin = 233pts

    Paladin Standard Bearer = 228pts

    Damsel of the Lady = 78pts
    Steed, +25pts
    Pegasus, +30pts

    Knight Errant = 23pts
    Cavalier, +3pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts

    Knight of the Realm = 26pts
    Gallant, +3pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts

    Questing Knight = 35pts
    Paragon, +5pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Lutist, +10pts

    Grail Knights = 41pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts
    *For the Lady!: You are assumed to always get the reroll, no need for the Grail or the shouting.

    Pegasus Knights = 45pts
    Gallant, +4pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts

    Battle Pilgrim = 8pts
    Grail Reliquae, +25pts

    Man At Arms = 5pts
    Warden, +3pts
    Banner, +10pts
    Drummer, +10pts
    Relic Bearer, +20pts

    Bowman = 5pts
    Villein (free)
    Drummer, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts
    Stakes, +10pts
    Relic Bearer, +20pts
    Burning Braziers, +1pt/model

    Mounted Yeoman = 15pts
    Warden, +3pts
    Standard Bearer, +10pts
    Trumpeter, +10pts

    Field Trebuchet = 77pts
    Last edited by CaptainSarathai; January 30th, 2016 at 20:24. Reason: edited for balanced formula
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

  10. #8
    Drill Sergeant Lord Borak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the Loft
    Age
    11
    Posts
    10,215
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    2052 (x8)

    That's some pretty awesome effort that has gone in to this mate. I can't give you any help regarding if it's fair or not (I haven't played AoS) but people will have more of an idea as you release more point values.

    Keep up the good work mate. +Rep.

  11. #9
    Sparta! Exarch Thomo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, Queensland
    Posts
    1,438
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    198 (x4)

    That is some good work you've done there. Like Borak, I haven't played AoS, and frankly have no intention too, so take everything that's said with a grain of salt.

    It's an interesting range in points values that have been generated, and I'm quite surprised in the differnce - especially between infantry and cavalry. Cavalry has always been more expensive, and with very good reason, but that seems like a huge gap.

    And it's curious that Grail Knights have come out less expensive than Questing. Why is that? I've just looked at the battlescroll(?) for the first time, and it's interesting to see that (on the surface) Questing Knights are better than Grail Knights. The Grail Knights get a bonus to damage for one turn, but in all other respects are now equal - at best - with Questing knights, worse against Monsters, and are actually less effective in protracted combats...even less effective considering you can include a Paragon in questing knights to further increase effectiveness


    And I am surprised to see Longbowmen and [email protected] reach the same cost too - not sure why but I would have expected them to be different given what I've heard about the effectiveness of shooting in AoS.

    It's also interesting to see that (from memory) the costs you've calculated for Knights Errant/KotR are similar to what they used to be under GW and the old Bret Codex, but then Grail and Questing are double that of the Errant/Realm, and yet the command upgrades are basically the same price as before - is that deliberate as well or just a happy coincidence?

    And as an aside, after looking at the scroll, it's good to see GW have finally embraced the fact that the steeds are, more often than not, more deadly than the riders. The amount of times my knights have fluffed all their attacks only to have the horses pull them out of trouble...
    Dovie'andi se tovya sagain (It's time to roll the dice)- Mattrim Cauthon

  12. #10
    Benevolent Dictator CaptainSarathai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    inside your head
    Posts
    9,222
    Mentioned
    77 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Reputation
    ReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputationReputation
    1480 (x8)

    Quote Originally Posted by Exarch Thomo View Post
    It's an interesting range in points values that have been generated, and I'm quite surprised in the difference - especially between infantry and cavalry. Cavalry has always been more expensive, and with very good reason, but that seems like a huge gap.
    It's also interesting to see that (from memory) the costs you've calculated for Knights Errant/KotR are similar to what they used to be under GW and the old Bret Codex, but then Grail and Questing are double that of the Errant/Realm, and yet the command upgrades are basically the same price as before - is that deliberate as well or just a happy coincidence?
    Well, I found an error in the formula that was causing "reach weapons" (melee weapons with greater than 1" range) to be assessed at 7x their intended value. So that was great...

    I couldn't figure out the disparity at first either, and it was perplexing. Running tests, everything was taking 3 rounds to kill each other, and it was always in favor of the cheaper models*.

    I think that I've figured it out though. I needed a "flat modifier". For example, whatever I set the 'Average Model' cost to be, that becomes the "modifier". So if I want the average statline to be worth 7pts (the amount that was kicking back those "similar" numbers you mentioned for Knights of the Realm and Knights Errant), then I set the modifier to x7. Originally, the modifier was set to x10 before I realized that it was spitting out numbers that were just huge and unwieldy. Nobody wants 10pt Marauders, for example.
    Larger numbers have the advantage of giving a wider variety of points values, but they increase the disparity greatly when you start getting into the more expensive units (example, a model "pre-modifier" is worth 8.7pts, at x10 that's 87pts, but at x7 it's just 60.9). Adding smaller numbers also lowers the value of the "average" model, and therefore the points values of all models across the game, evenly - as I mentioned earlier.

    So what I decided to do was add a "flat modifier". Rather than deciding that I would have a 7pt average model and using a x7 modifier, I decided to modify the points by (x5)+2. This keeps the average at 7pts, it also makes cheaper models slightly overcosted* and provides a sizable discount to the Elite models. Using that method (and the Reach fix) a Knight of the Realm costs 24pts and a Questing Knight is worth 31pts. Men At Arms are worth 4pts. These values are almost identical to those in the Armybook.

    *There's something to be said for "cheap" models in AoS. Because of the way that the game was designed to be fair and balanced without points (I know, weird, considering all the whinging everyone's been doing), the "cheap" models like [email protected] are actually pretty capable of bogging down the elites. Firstly, without To Hit or To Wound modifiers, and very few Armor modifiers or armor better than 4+, it's a case of "Lascannon Volleys" - where simply inflicting a bunch of hits will sneak something through eventually, and wreck a 30pt model with ease. However, cheap models also have another trick up their sleeves. For every 10 models in a unit, they gain +1 Bravery, which is quite valuable in AoS. Additionally, most units have rules that kick in by 10-model increments, such as [email protected] getting +1 To Hit if there are at least 20 of them in the regiment. So making them somewhat "overcosted" is offset by the fact that there are often going to be larger regiments of them on the table, thereby triggering these extra effects.

    And I am surprised to see Longbowmen and [email protected] reach the same cost too - not sure why but I would have expected them to be different given what I've heard about the effectiveness of shooting in AoS.
    Shooting is effective in AoS, in that a unit can shoot into it's own ongoing combat. But you can only do this on your own turn, and you have to be alive in order to do it. [email protected] have a 5+ Save most turns, and are swinging away with a 5+4+ every turn. The Archers do have a 5+4+ ranged attack, but on the "off turn" they're swiging 5+/5+ swords, and theyonly have a 6+ save.
    The formula is written so that Bravery and Armor both factor in to the cost of a unit. Together, they make up a sort of "survival" modifier - the number of rounds it would take to bring down a model using average attacks. Keep in mind that in AoS, you no longer Panic, but instead just straight "crumble" as though you were Undead (D6+Killed, compared to Bravery - you lose the difference). So with Ld4, for every 1 Archer or [email protected] you lose, you can almost count on losing 1 more.
    Also, there is a +1pt assessment for every inch of "reach" on a melee weapon. So the [email protected] are closer to 2pts each, +1pt for fighting at longer range (or in extra ranks when blocked up).
    Pts Values for AoS here!

    Nippon Armybook: Isuu, Scribd, and free at Google Docs

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts