Points frustration
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
- Posts: 136
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:52 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: Points frustration
What annoys me is taking 3 TC's, they are the only thing that uses an uneven number of points. So if you take 3 or 1 you will not be able to spend the extra point and will have a max total of 799.
I sould say though, it's always just a peeve and not an acctual problem.
I sould say though, it's always just a peeve and not an acctual problem.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Re: Points frustration
But they'll have an advantage in a 799 point competition!Fluffy wrote:What annoys me is taking 3 TC's, they are the only thing that uses an uneven number of points. So if you take 3 or 1 you will not be able to spend the extra point and will have a max total of 799.
I sould say though, it's always just a peeve and not an acctual problem.
Re: Points frustration
>they are the only thing that uses an uneven number of points
Ah - now that's where 1/3 supporting LF can come in handy!
Ah - now that's where 1/3 supporting LF can come in handy!
Re: Points frustration
I have an example - putting together a medieval army where the cheapest troop type is 6AP - potential to waste up to 11AP. Or even worse - you have selected all of your BGs with maximum allowable size and have, say, 14AP left over. What can you do with that? Seems a little unfair and artificial to require you to reconfigure your army to use all the AP, otherwise be at a disadvantage relative to armies with more flexible troop options.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Points frustration
I use Sassanids. Is it fair then that I can overspend by 75 points as the cheapest BG in my army is 76.
That appears to be your logic
That appears to be your logic
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3057
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Re: Points frustration
I appreciate you find this frustrating but being unable to spend that 14 AP is unlikely to make much difference in reality. And in the great majority of armies it's possible to get very close to the points limit.NickW wrote:I have an example - putting together a medieval army where the cheapest troop type is 6AP - potential to waste up to 11AP. Or even worse - you have selected all of your BGs with maximum allowable size and have, say, 14AP left over. What can you do with that? Seems a little unfair and artificial to require you to reconfigure your army to use all the AP, otherwise be at a disadvantage relative to armies with more flexible troop options.
Even if everyone agreed it was a glaring fault, which it isn't, nithing will be done about it for ages as we just have a new version of the rules.
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Points frustration
What could be done?grahambriggs wrote:Even if everyone agreed it was a glaring fault, which it isn't, nithing will be done about it for ages as we just have a new version of the rules.
And points limits aren't really part of the rules, they are set by those organising the game.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
Re: Points frustration
I really think this is a non-issue. I checked the armies for 2 tournaments I umpired last year. Out of 40 lists:
19 were exactly 800 points.
17 were between 796-799.
4 were between 792-795.
So only 10% of players "lost" more than 5 points, and the greatest was 8.
19 were exactly 800 points.
17 were between 796-799.
4 were between 792-795.
So only 10% of players "lost" more than 5 points, and the greatest was 8.
Re: Points frustration
I totally agree with Phil, allow people to overspend a little to avoid the "frustration" of not being able to spend all of the nominal limit, and all you achieve is people then getting frustrated because they spent exactly the nominal limit and therefore wasted the extra points they could have overspent by.
I have wondered though if the rules should perhaps allow odd numbers of bases in BGs (aside from the 9 base 2/3 1/3 thing). Seems theoretically perfectly justifiable to me. You have an 8 bases phalanx and can lose a base in combat in the battle today. Alternatively maybe that base was lost in a small skirmish yesterday and today as you deploy on table you start with an already depleted BG.
How the rules should work in such cases is presumably why the authors avoided this - do you count hits per base vs. 7 bases, or 8 bases on the theory that that's the units proper strength and the casualties lost before this battle should decrease their morale slightly? If the former, does the player game the system by choosing BG sizes that don't divide easily by 2 or 3. If the latter, why does the player pay normal cost that actually makes its BG quicker to get to -1 on CTs (lose one base from a 6 base BG and you haven't lost 25%; lost one from a 7 base BG that is considered to be 8 bases for morale purposes, and you have lost 25%).
I have wondered though if the rules should perhaps allow odd numbers of bases in BGs (aside from the 9 base 2/3 1/3 thing). Seems theoretically perfectly justifiable to me. You have an 8 bases phalanx and can lose a base in combat in the battle today. Alternatively maybe that base was lost in a small skirmish yesterday and today as you deploy on table you start with an already depleted BG.
How the rules should work in such cases is presumably why the authors avoided this - do you count hits per base vs. 7 bases, or 8 bases on the theory that that's the units proper strength and the casualties lost before this battle should decrease their morale slightly? If the former, does the player game the system by choosing BG sizes that don't divide easily by 2 or 3. If the latter, why does the player pay normal cost that actually makes its BG quicker to get to -1 on CTs (lose one base from a 6 base BG and you haven't lost 25%; lost one from a 7 base BG that is considered to be 8 bases for morale purposes, and you have lost 25%).
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Re: Points frustration
True but...ShrubMiK wrote:I have wondered though if the rules should perhaps allow odd numbers of bases in BGs (aside from the 9 base 2/3 1/3 thing). Seems theoretically perfectly justifiable to me. You have an 8 bases phalanx and can lose a base in combat in the battle today. Alternatively maybe that base was lost in a small skirmish yesterday and today as you deploy on table you start with an already depleted BG.
People would FREQUENTLY buy the odd base because it would give you so many advantages. For HPB in melee and shooting, the 25% penalty to autobreak level.
Now you consider giving a free extra base to every average, protected/un protected, defensive/offensive spear unit on the ground why not they need all the help they can get and make the minorly more sturdy. Still not enough to make them worth much.
Re: Points frustration
Agreed. Which is why either making sure the benefits and downsides are reasonably balanced would be important, or perhaps just limit it to one BG with an "extra" base, purely for the purposes of using up some points, thereby limiting the possible gains that could be made from it.
Which also makes me think, why not consider allowing one BG of smaller than normal size? One 4 base auxilia BG in a Dominate Roman army, for example, presumably doesn't instantly turn it into a swarm, but does allow another mechanism for increased flexibility in spending points.
But of course this is just idle musing...I'm not particularly bothered by the rules as they stand, and seldom find myself wasting more than a 5 points.
Which also makes me think, why not consider allowing one BG of smaller than normal size? One 4 base auxilia BG in a Dominate Roman army, for example, presumably doesn't instantly turn it into a swarm, but does allow another mechanism for increased flexibility in spending points.
But of course this is just idle musing...I'm not particularly bothered by the rules as they stand, and seldom find myself wasting more than a 5 points.
-
- Colonel - Ju 88A
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
Re: Points frustration
I think the solution is to restrict armies to 795 points, but allow you to go over the limit by up to 5 points.
Lawrence Greaves
-
- Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
- Posts: 8812
- Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
- Location: Manchester
Re: Points frustration
lawrenceg wrote:I think the solution is to restrict armies to 795 points, but allow you to go over the limit by up to 5 points.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Re: Points frustration
I see your and raise you
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28015
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Points frustration
lawrenceg wrote:I think the solution is to restrict armies to 795 points, but allow you to go over the limit by up to 5 points.
Re: Points frustration
It's not a fault nor a major problem, just a frustration (that is probably unnecessary).grahambriggs wrote:I appreciate you find this frustrating but being unable to spend that 14 AP is unlikely to make much difference in reality. And in the great majority of armies it's possible to get very close to the points limit.NickW wrote:I have an example - putting together a medieval army where the cheapest troop type is 6AP - potential to waste up to 11AP. Or even worse - you have selected all of your BGs with maximum allowable size and have, say, 14AP left over. What can you do with that? Seems a little unfair and artificial to require you to reconfigure your army to use all the AP, otherwise be at a disadvantage relative to armies with more flexible troop options.
Even if everyone agreed it was a glaring fault, which it isn't, nithing will be done about it for ages as we just have a new version of the rules.
Re: Points frustration
Brilliant!lawrenceg wrote:I think the solution is to restrict armies to 795 points, but allow you to go over the limit by up to 5 points.
-
- Senior Corporal - Destroyer
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 3:27 am
Re: Points frustration
I played 7th and Warrior for years and you could exceed the notional total by the value of the cheapest element in your army.
I never understood there to be any basis in principle for that approach.
It lead to lots of discussion.
I prefer the hard limits.
I am also in favour of having tournaments at varying points sizes to prevent people obsessing about their one perfect list that they use all the time.
Adrian
I never understood there to be any basis in principle for that approach.
It lead to lots of discussion.
I prefer the hard limits.
I am also in favour of having tournaments at varying points sizes to prevent people obsessing about their one perfect list that they use all the time.
Adrian
Re: Points frustration
I recently saw a fow tournament posted at 1760 points. Speculation was that someone had found a perfect list at 1760 so made the tournament at this level.
Ian
Ian
Re: Points frustration
lol
sounds like an entirely reasonable speculation!
I could relate to a FoW points limit of something like 1939 though.
sounds like an entirely reasonable speculation!
I could relate to a FoW points limit of something like 1939 though.