Other Points Changes

[nikgaukroger]

To avoid clutter in the Mounted Points topic (although there may be some overlap) here is a topic for people to suggest other points changes that may be justified.

[nikgaukroger]

Should Shooting Pistol and Carbine cost 1 point instead of 2?

Seems a bit over priced at present to me.

[IanP]

In a similar point, HtoH weapons for LH seem overpriced as there are limited times when they are much benefit, only really against their opposite numbers and dragoons. I guess it is a bigger point if two Eastern armies clash.

[madaxeman]

Should Shooting Pistol and Carbine cost 1 point instead of 2?

Seems a bit over priced at present to me.

heck yeah.

[Jhykronos]

Should Shooting Pistol and Carbine cost 1 point instead of 2?

Seems a bit over priced at present to me.

For horse, they should probably cost 1. More useful for cavalry, IMO.

[nikgaukroger]

Should Shooting Pistol and Carbine cost 1 point instead of 2?

Seems a bit over priced at present to me.

For horse, they should probably cost 1. More useful for cavalry, IMO.

Maybe true, however, we are not going to make weapon capabilities different cost for the troop type (other than the current mounted/infantry split).

[Jhykronos]

Maybe true, however, we are not going to make weapon capabilities different cost for the troop type (other than the current mounted/infantry split).

Fair enough.

In terms of point comparison, Horse with Carbine --- Pistol are currently costed more than --- Pistol Pistol. I'd say there is a fair amount of consensus that this is backwards.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is if bow range is reduced, costing bows at 2 and carbines at 1 would be strange.

[nikgaukroger]

One thing to keep in mind, though, is if bow range is reduced, costing bows at 2 and carbines at 1 would be strange.

Good point - would probably need to be reduced as well.

[Jhykronos]

Swedish Brigade cost?

[nikgaukroger]

Richard and I discussed this one knowing it would be mentioned and agreed that we think no change is needed in this case.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Just out of interest, what is the rationale behind it, and why is it 4 points?

[nikgaukroger]

Just out of interest, what is the rationale behind it, and why is it 4 points?

The rationale is that the 7 base BG of 3 pike and 4 shot have advantages that are not properly reflected in the total cost of the bases - the BG is a bit cheap and so an extra cost is needed. The 4 points is what felt about right.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Fair enough.

[DavidT]

Fortified camps.
Has anyone ever paid 24 points voluntarily for a fortified camp?
If the points were reduced (say half), it might be an option to consider.

[nikgaukroger]

Based on a comment in another thread.

Regimental Guns seem a pretty no-brainer choice if they are available, and this may indicate that they are a bit under-priced. Taking or not taking should be a decision to make and it looks as though it may not be at present.

A small increase in their points cost may be in order perhaps?

[timmy1]

Agreed.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Bear in mind that many armies which allow them also have an "all or none" requirement (or something similar), so it can work out quite expensive.

[nikgaukroger]

Bear in mind that many armies which allow them also have an "all or none" requirement (or something similar), so it can work out quite expensive.

I don't recall any lists that have an all/none requirement for Regimental Guns. Nearly all are of a 0-1/BG type of requirement - I think Qing might be the only list that actually has a minimum for them (and then only if infantry are used).

[DavidT]

Early 30YW Swedes must have at least half their Brigades with Reg Guns. So the Swedes will be even more expensive .
And with the current Commanded shot rules, all/0 for their commanded shoot - although this will likely not be an issue with the proposed changes.

[madaxeman]

Based on a comment in another thread.

Regimental Guns seem a pretty no-brainer choice if they are available, and this may indicate that they are a bit under-priced. Taking or not taking should be a decision to make and it looks as though it may not be at present.

A small increase in their points cost may be in order perhaps?

That "might" be getting into the territory of "too many updates"...

Whist they are good value, worth bearing in mind that they also give a bit of a USP to those armies that can have them.... which is probably a good thing in a gaming period with relatively few USP's. And as another poster says, have too many and their points do add up quite quickly to be the equivalent of another full unit, or more - at which point the choice gets a bit trickier...