Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:35 pm
Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Hello, All!
I am posting this everywhere I think it might be useful. I am a veteran war gamer and am interested in playing Age of Sigmar, but like most of the community, I am frustrated by the lack of points/balance, while I am impressed by the quality of the models themselves, as usual. While GW doesn’t always seem to know how to write the “best” rules, their models are amazing! So, without further hesitation, here’s how I propose we balance Age of Sigmar with points:
It has been suggested that we use the Battalion WarScrolls and/or Wounds to balance this game. That is not an accurate way to balance something, as a Monster with high Wounds, such as a Great Unclean One, is worth way more than 20 Skaven Clan Rats. So in order to determine the points cost, I have made a spreadsheet (available for Download in my Signature below as either the full thing or just points costs for what I have put in so far) that will calculate a points system based upon the stats of the models. All you have to do is type in the following stats: Minimum Unit Size, Move, Save, Bravery, Wounds; then for each melee/ranged attack, input Range, Attacks, To Hit, To Wound, Rend, and Damage. Finally, under Additional Points, put in 10 points for each of the following keywords: Hero, Monster, and Wizard. If you desire to try to figure out how much certain special abilities are worth, you can also type that in under Additional Points. Additional Points are divided by the Minimum Unit size, so this is really only important for single model units, such as Heroes, Monsters, and Wizards. For Icons/Banners/Musicians/Leaders of multimodel units, I simply added in 1 point to show that technically this is a bonus to the unit, but that point cost is absorbed across multiple models’ costs.
If you don’t want to know how my spreadsheet works, then skip to the bottom or just download the thing and try it out. I’m considering this a beta test, so if you have issues or questions or suggested tweaks/points cost changes, please respond here or PM me on this forum. I am a busy guy, but I’ll do my best. Since I’m giving you all the resources freely, you could also just make the changes yourself. Hopefully this will help with balancing.
Why am I doing this? I played a game the other day with one of my best friends. He took Skaven. I took Nurgle Daemons. I have 16 models. He had like 68. He had over 100 wounds. I had 50 or so. The game was incredibly balanced. My friend playing the Skaven army won on the final turn with one model left on the table. It was a great game. We both had a blast. How did we balance this game? We used the spreadsheet. I realize that it is a pain in the butt to have to type in these stats and that, yes, indeed, it isn’t our responsibility. Well, I am willing to give you the tools to do this yourself and I am willing to type in as many units/models as I can with the limited amount of time that I have. I will update this from time to time and include the new points. If you don’t like my points value or you want to change the points a little: do it! It’s your game after all. But if you are looking for a balance based upon numbers that maybe—just maybe—we could all agree to, then this just might be it. I will post an explanation further down as the only response I've gotten so far is that the post is too long / needs broken down more. So here's the points and the newest version of the spreadsheet is in my signature:
Points Cost Per Model
Last Updated: 8/2/2015
Daemons of Chaos 8/2/2015
Bloodthirster of Insenate Rage
130 Points per Model
Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury
120 Points per Model
Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster
145 Points per Model
Skulltaker
45 Points per Model
Herald of Khorne
30 Points per Model
Herald of Khorne on Juggernaut
50 Points per Model
Blood Throne of Khorne
50 Points per Model
Bloodletters of Khorne
4 Points per Model
Bloodcrushers of Khorne
70 Points per Model
Karanak
35 Points per Model
Flesh Hounds of Khorne
20 Points per Model
Skull Cannons of Khorne
50 Points per Model
Great Unclean One
100 Points per Model
Epidemius
35 Points per Model
Herald of Nurgle
30 Points per Model
Plaguebearers of Nurgle
4 Points per Model
Plague Drones of Nurgle
70 Points per Model
Nurglings
15 Points per Model
Beasts of Nurgle
25 Points per Model
Kairos Fateweaver
160 Points per Model
Lord of Change
120 Points per Model
The Changeling
40 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch
45 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch on Disc
70 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch on Burning Chariot
85 Points per Model
The Blue Scribes
70 Points per Model
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch
4 Points per Model
Exalted Flamers
30 Points per Model
Flamers of Tzeentch
45 Points per Model
Screamers of Tzeentch
70 Points per Model
Burning Chariots of Tzeentch
70 Points per Model
Keeper of Secrets
150 Points per Model
The Masque of Slaanesh
50 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh
30 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh On Steed
50 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh on Seeker Chariot
55 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh on Exalted Seeker Chariot
80 Points per Model
Daemonettes of Slaanesh
5 Points per Model
Seekers of Slaanesh
40 Points per Model
Fiends of Slaanesh
30 Points per Model
Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
40 Points per Model
Exalted Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
65 Points per Model
Hellflayers of Slaanesh
55 Points per Model
Note for Daemon Prince: Axe/Sword swap is NO points change.
Daemon Prince of Khrone
DP Khrone Monster/Hero No Wings
70 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Khrone
DP Khrone Monster/Hero Wings
95 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Nurgle
DP Nurgle Monster/Hero No Wings
80 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Nurgle
DP Nurgle Monster/Hero Wings
105 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero No Wings
75 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero Wings
100 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero No Wings
70 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero Wings
95 Points per Model
Daemon Prince (neutral)
DP Monster/Hero No Wings
65 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince (neutral)
DP Monster/Hero Wings
90 Points per Model
Furies
8 Points per Model
Note: Soul Grinder Blade/Talon are equal in points.
Soul Grinder
Soul Grinder Monster Blade/Talon
150 Points per Model
Khorne Bloodbound 8/2/2015
Mighty Lord of Khorne
45 Points per Model
Bloodsecrator
35 Points per Model
Bloodstoker
35 Points per Model
Khorgoraths
40 Points per Model
Blood Warriors
10 Points per Model
Bloodreavers
5 Points per Model
Stormcast Eternals 8/2/2015
LordCelestant on Dracoth
80 Points per Model
LordCelestant
40 Points per Model
LordRelictor
30 Points per Model
LordCastellant
40 Points per Model
GryphHounds
10 Points per Model
Prosecutors
35 Points per Model
Retributors
20 Points per Model
Note: Nonspecial weapon Liberators are 7 points each regardless of equipment.
Liberator (nonspecial weapon)
7 Points per Model
NOTE: Grandhammer and Grandblade varients are same cost.
Liberator w/Grandhammer/Blade
10 Points per Model
Note: Judicators are same points for Bows/Crossbows
Judicators w/ Bows or Crossbows
8 Points per Model
Note: Judicators are same points for Shockbolt Bows/ Thunderbolt Crossbows
Judicator w/ Shockbolt or Thunderbolt
10 Points per Model
Protectors w/Glaive or Mace
15 Points per Model
Note: Decimators cost the same with the Mace as with the Axe.
Decimators
15 Points per Model
Skaven Next?! Or High Elves? :p We’ll see. Enjoy!
Hello, All!
I am posting this everywhere I think it might be useful. I am a veteran war gamer and am interested in playing Age of Sigmar, but like most of the community, I am frustrated by the lack of points/balance, while I am impressed by the quality of the models themselves, as usual. While GW doesn’t always seem to know how to write the “best” rules, their models are amazing! So, without further hesitation, here’s how I propose we balance Age of Sigmar with points:
It has been suggested that we use the Battalion WarScrolls and/or Wounds to balance this game. That is not an accurate way to balance something, as a Monster with high Wounds, such as a Great Unclean One, is worth way more than 20 Skaven Clan Rats. So in order to determine the points cost, I have made a spreadsheet (available for Download in my Signature below as either the full thing or just points costs for what I have put in so far) that will calculate a points system based upon the stats of the models. All you have to do is type in the following stats: Minimum Unit Size, Move, Save, Bravery, Wounds; then for each melee/ranged attack, input Range, Attacks, To Hit, To Wound, Rend, and Damage. Finally, under Additional Points, put in 10 points for each of the following keywords: Hero, Monster, and Wizard. If you desire to try to figure out how much certain special abilities are worth, you can also type that in under Additional Points. Additional Points are divided by the Minimum Unit size, so this is really only important for single model units, such as Heroes, Monsters, and Wizards. For Icons/Banners/Musicians/Leaders of multimodel units, I simply added in 1 point to show that technically this is a bonus to the unit, but that point cost is absorbed across multiple models’ costs.
If you don’t want to know how my spreadsheet works, then skip to the bottom or just download the thing and try it out. I’m considering this a beta test, so if you have issues or questions or suggested tweaks/points cost changes, please respond here or PM me on this forum. I am a busy guy, but I’ll do my best. Since I’m giving you all the resources freely, you could also just make the changes yourself. Hopefully this will help with balancing.
Why am I doing this? I played a game the other day with one of my best friends. He took Skaven. I took Nurgle Daemons. I have 16 models. He had like 68. He had over 100 wounds. I had 50 or so. The game was incredibly balanced. My friend playing the Skaven army won on the final turn with one model left on the table. It was a great game. We both had a blast. How did we balance this game? We used the spreadsheet. I realize that it is a pain in the butt to have to type in these stats and that, yes, indeed, it isn’t our responsibility. Well, I am willing to give you the tools to do this yourself and I am willing to type in as many units/models as I can with the limited amount of time that I have. I will update this from time to time and include the new points. If you don’t like my points value or you want to change the points a little: do it! It’s your game after all. But if you are looking for a balance based upon numbers that maybe—just maybe—we could all agree to, then this just might be it. I will post an explanation further down as the only response I've gotten so far is that the post is too long / needs broken down more. So here's the points and the newest version of the spreadsheet is in my signature:
Points Cost Per Model
Last Updated: 8/2/2015
Daemons of Chaos 8/2/2015
Bloodthirster of Insenate Rage
130 Points per Model
Bloodthirster of Unfettered Fury
120 Points per Model
Wrath of Khorne Bloodthirster
145 Points per Model
Skulltaker
45 Points per Model
Herald of Khorne
30 Points per Model
Herald of Khorne on Juggernaut
50 Points per Model
Blood Throne of Khorne
50 Points per Model
Bloodletters of Khorne
4 Points per Model
Bloodcrushers of Khorne
70 Points per Model
Karanak
35 Points per Model
Flesh Hounds of Khorne
20 Points per Model
Skull Cannons of Khorne
50 Points per Model
Great Unclean One
100 Points per Model
Epidemius
35 Points per Model
Herald of Nurgle
30 Points per Model
Plaguebearers of Nurgle
4 Points per Model
Plague Drones of Nurgle
70 Points per Model
Nurglings
15 Points per Model
Beasts of Nurgle
25 Points per Model
Kairos Fateweaver
160 Points per Model
Lord of Change
120 Points per Model
The Changeling
40 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch
45 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch on Disc
70 Points per Model
Herald of Tzeentch on Burning Chariot
85 Points per Model
The Blue Scribes
70 Points per Model
Pink Horrors of Tzeentch
4 Points per Model
Exalted Flamers
30 Points per Model
Flamers of Tzeentch
45 Points per Model
Screamers of Tzeentch
70 Points per Model
Burning Chariots of Tzeentch
70 Points per Model
Keeper of Secrets
150 Points per Model
The Masque of Slaanesh
50 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh
30 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh On Steed
50 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh on Seeker Chariot
55 Points per Model
Herald of Slaanesh on Exalted Seeker Chariot
80 Points per Model
Daemonettes of Slaanesh
5 Points per Model
Seekers of Slaanesh
40 Points per Model
Fiends of Slaanesh
30 Points per Model
Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
40 Points per Model
Exalted Seeker Chariots of Slaanesh
65 Points per Model
Hellflayers of Slaanesh
55 Points per Model
Note for Daemon Prince: Axe/Sword swap is NO points change.
Daemon Prince of Khrone
DP Khrone Monster/Hero No Wings
70 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Khrone
DP Khrone Monster/Hero Wings
95 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Nurgle
DP Nurgle Monster/Hero No Wings
80 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Nurgle
DP Nurgle Monster/Hero Wings
105 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero No Wings
75 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Tzeentch
DP Tzeentch Monster/Hero Wings
100 Points per Model
Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero No Wings
70 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince of Slaanesh
DP Slaanesh Monster/Hero Wings
95 Points per Model
Daemon Prince (neutral)
DP Monster/Hero No Wings
65 Points per Model
Winged Daemon Prince (neutral)
DP Monster/Hero Wings
90 Points per Model
Furies
8 Points per Model
Note: Soul Grinder Blade/Talon are equal in points.
Soul Grinder
Soul Grinder Monster Blade/Talon
150 Points per Model
Khorne Bloodbound 8/2/2015
Mighty Lord of Khorne
45 Points per Model
Bloodsecrator
35 Points per Model
Bloodstoker
35 Points per Model
Khorgoraths
40 Points per Model
Blood Warriors
10 Points per Model
Bloodreavers
5 Points per Model
Stormcast Eternals 8/2/2015
LordCelestant on Dracoth
80 Points per Model
LordCelestant
40 Points per Model
LordRelictor
30 Points per Model
LordCastellant
40 Points per Model
GryphHounds
10 Points per Model
Prosecutors
35 Points per Model
Retributors
20 Points per Model
Note: Nonspecial weapon Liberators are 7 points each regardless of equipment.
Liberator (nonspecial weapon)
7 Points per Model
NOTE: Grandhammer and Grandblade varients are same cost.
Liberator w/Grandhammer/Blade
10 Points per Model
Note: Judicators are same points for Bows/Crossbows
Judicators w/ Bows or Crossbows
8 Points per Model
Note: Judicators are same points for Shockbolt Bows/ Thunderbolt Crossbows
Judicator w/ Shockbolt or Thunderbolt
10 Points per Model
Protectors w/Glaive or Mace
15 Points per Model
Note: Decimators cost the same with the Mace as with the Axe.
Decimators
15 Points per Model
Skaven Next?! Or High Elves? :p We’ll see. Enjoy!
Last edited by coruptcopy on Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:22 pm, edited 3 times in total.
I am playtesting for AoS via the PPC. Check it out:
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:35 pm
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Oh, and I forgot to mention that based upon this beta version of the spreadsheet the Age of Sigmar starter box is pretty balanced. The Sigmarites only have like 40 more points that the Khorne Bloodbound. And since both armies are in the 300 point range, that's really pretty close. So I would support the claim that the box set armies are pretty balanced against each other. I hope future sets will be well balanced too. Again, I love this game. Just think a points system would help us make sure we aren't crushing one another by accident or on purpose.
I also think that GW statement about only taking so many Warscrolls and heroes and monsters is pretty solid too. Take that and add in this point system and I'm hoping we have a balanced and fun skirmish game that we can play using these fantastic models.
I also think that GW statement about only taking so many Warscrolls and heroes and monsters is pretty solid too. Take that and add in this point system and I'm hoping we have a balanced and fun skirmish game that we can play using these fantastic models.
I am playtesting for AoS via the PPC. Check it out:
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
 Spacefrisian
 Lives, breathes, and eats MiniWarGaming
 Posts: 1296
 Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:13 pm
 Location: Nij Beets
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Might i suggest breaking up that huge chunk of text in smaller parts?
The clans are marching against the law
Bagpipers play the tunes of war
Death or glory I will find
Rebellion on my mind
Bagpipers play the tunes of war
Death or glory I will find
Rebellion on my mind

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:35 pm
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Here I will explain how the spreadsheet works. Again, if you'd just like points, feel free to use the post above and / or the spreadsheet and ignore all this. If you have actual feedback, I'd love to hear it.
Here’s how the spreadsheet works: rather than just adding all the numbers together or using wounds or whatever, I’ve actually figured out a way to determine an “actual” amount of probability using fairly basic math principles. If you find errors or issues, please let me know so that I can correct them. For Wounds, instead of making each Wound a point, I figured out the “effective” number of Wounds by looking at the Save of the model and comparing it to the Wounds. You can see the actual formulas on the spreadsheet, at any time. But basically, if you have a 4+ save, you are saving “statistically” half the time. Now I know that the dice don’t actually end up that way. We all have bad, bad dice from time to time, but “statistically” that’s how it should go. So if my model has 10 Wounds and a 4+ Save, to kill that model, statistically, the enemy will have to wound it 20 times. I hope that makes sense. So that model, for it’s Wounds/Saves value has a calculated cost of 20.
Next we do basically the reverse calculations for Melee/Ranged attacks. If a model does 20 Attacks, and Hits on a 4+, then statistically it will hit on 10 of those attacks. Next for to Wound, let’s say it has a 4+ again. Then it will Wound on half again, down to 5 Wounds, on average. Now let’s look at the actual damage. If the model does 1 damage per attack, then just use the 5 as points value to add to our Wounds/Saves calc. If it does 2 damage per attack, then double it. And so on. That’s the basics.
Here’s the other/more complicated stuff: What about Rending/Range/etc.? I’ve factored in Rending by multiplying it by the amount of Damage the attack does since, I would argue that each Damage is “better” if it Rends. If the Rend is 2, then this becomes a multiplier. If it is 1, then it just adds in the damage again. For Range on Melee I just added in the number. If it is a 1, that attack costs 1 point. If it’s a 3, that’s three more points. We can debate whether or not this too should be a multiplier. My thoughts are that if you are playing a huge horde army, a high Melee range may actually change the outcome of some attacks, but I think that it will most of the time be fairly negligible. Debate this below/with me, by all means. As for Ranged attacks, I’ve assumed (rightly or wrongly) an average range of 12. So when you type in the Ranged value of the attack, that number is divided by 12 and then used as a multiplier. If the range of the attack is 24, then it doubles the cost of that attack because that’s a huge range. If the range is only 8, then it will cut the cost of that attack by 25%. I realize that 12 may not be the average range, but as long as the value we pick is used consistently across the board to determine ranged attack points cost, then it should all be balanced equally. The only quest is whether or not this is balancing out ranged versus melee. Here’s my answer to that: most Ranged units have a (crappy) melee attack too, so that unit is going to cost more than a unit that only has Melee. Therefore, an all melee army can take more models than an all ranged army, which should push the player to play with a more balanced army, a mix of both, than all one or the other. But you can do whatever you like. You’ll quickly see that units that have lots of attacks cost more points because they have the potential to do more damage. Duh, right!
For Movement values, I did the same thing as with Ranged attacks only I chose an “average” value of 5. Again, this is a guess, really, but it should balance fairly well. Models with high move, cost more. Models with low move, cost less.
You will note that Cavalry units, due to high move/armor/attacks tend to cost a lot of points. However, they also are amazingly effective on the battlefield, so I believe this is what balance is all about.
What about Bravery? Bravery, until we see some sort of Fear/Bravery test coming up is effectively useless for single model units, so in order to show this, if the minimum unit size is 1 model, the Bravery cost is 1 point per model (hence if you can take 5 of them, then it costs 5 points total, but if it is just a single model always then it is just one point, so it does still scale for units that have minimum size of 1). If the minimum unit size is higher than 1, I do this calculation: Bravery divided by Minimum unit size equals points cost per model. In this way, we see that a unit with 10 Bravery and 10 models is still only paying 1 point per model for Bravery, whereas a unit with only 5 models is paying 2 points. Why is that? That’s not balanced, right? Actually, it really is because that smaller unit is benefiting more from that high Bravery value than the larger unit. If the small unit isn’t wiped out in an attack, let’s say two models survive, then we take the Bravery of 10 and subtract 3 (because three models died) and get a value of 7, which means, that unit will not lose models due to Battleshock unless there is some special rule/ability that messes with their Bravery. They are effectively immune to Battleshock. Same scenario only with the larger unit: let’s say 7 models out of our 10 man unit get destroyed. Now we have an effective Bravery of 3, and potentially are going to lose models on our Battleshock roll. What’s the point? Well, taking more models in either situation is beneficial, but this balances out what models are more likely to remain on the table due to autopassing Battleshock than not. Many units only pay 1 point per model for Bravery, but some (Daemons!) pay more since they are highly unlikely to fail.
Additional small points: What about D6/D3/Monster damage Tables/Etc.? For the dice rolls, I just used the average. So on D6, the average is technically 3.5, so that’s the number I input. For D3, it’s 1.5. Again these are statistical methods and in practice not always accurate, but we have to try something, right? Also, don't input any negative numbers for Rending. If it is a Rend of  2, just type in 2.
For Monster damage tables, at first I started running numbers for the whole table and concluding the average amount that that value would often be, and then I threw my hands in the air and asked just what the hell I was trying to do here, really? I mean, if I bring a Bloodthirster to the table, I’m not bringing it for the value of what it can do when it’s about to die. I’m bringing it to stomp face when it is still near full strength. So I just used the fully healed stats in all of those tables. You can debate whether or not this is fair. In all honesty, in all the games I’ve played so far, I would be more likely to increase the points of most of the Monster models than decrease them, so using the best values is actually doing just that. This is also the reason for the 10 points additional cost per Monster. I would also do 10 points for Warmachines, but I haven’t gotten to any of those yet. And again, I’m play testing when I can, but I want to give this to the community so that we all can play test this and determine if this does in fact balance the game somewhat (at least better than the Wounds/Models method).
So what about Abilities and Magic? This is where things get funky. If an Ability is really good, such as reroll all failed saves, I suggest we make that expensive, like 10 points, because that effectively doubles the amount of wounds that model has. Likewise, if it is reroll all failed hit/wound rolls, that’s effectively doubling the models attack value/damage output. For most Abilities though I made them cost 1 to 3 points based upon how “good” I thought they were. For single model units, this “arbitrary” system needs work. If the Ability or Magic does damage, I calculated it just like an Attack and typed in the number. So if it takes a 7 to cast (on two dice that’s effectively 50% To Hit, right?) and does D6 Mortal Wounds, I assume that half the time you will be doing 3.5 Mortal Wounds (which I think is a Rend of 5, effectively). Am I overcosting this? Maybe. We can debate it. Mortal Wounds though are pretty hardcore, so they should cost more. In the end, I just want the abilities to be balance, so if a unit has reroll all 1’s to Hit and another unit has that same type of ability in another Faction, it should cost the same. Again, for large model count units, these costs are absorbed because I divided the cost per minimum model size. For single model units, though, the cost is exactly what we type in for the ability cost. This is the ONLY part of this system that involves us not just typing in the exact stat from the WarScroll. This is the ONLY part, therefore, that is in anyway based upon opinion. For large units, again, it basically is negligible. So feel free to debate how much a spell or ability on a Hero should cost, by all means. This will require some balancing act too.
Also, I tried to keep single model units to whole numbers that were multiples of 5. In other words, if my method calculated that a Bloodthirster model should be 133 points, I pushed that up to 135. If it told me that a Great Unclean One is 101 points, I dropped that to 100. This just seems way easier to balance out the points cost of an army than to have that one extra point lingering there preventing you from taking another model or something silly like that.
If a unit had multiple weapons options, I wrote the Weapon in under Custom and made two separate entries for the unit. For instance, say you could run that unit with Axes or Blades. I put in Axes first and only used that attack value to calculate points. Then for the next entry I used the Blades. While I still have LOTS of models/units/WarScrolls to enter, so far the cost difference has been negligible. So let me give GW at least this much credit: they have balanced the individual choices of models fairly well so far, in my opinion, against themselves. If there is the option for a special weapon for every five models, or something like that, I calculated the cost of that single model with the special weapon. So far, these models tend to cost 23 points more than their regular counterparts.
Finally, as for Battalions, I would just take the models as there “normal” points cost from the spreadsheet and assume that, as in 40k, the bonuses are free as long as you take all the appropriate models. I feel like most of the Battalions/collections of models are fairly balanced by forcing you to take certain models that maybe you would not normally use. Debate this at your leisure.
I think I have explained everything, but if you have any questions, please look over the spreadsheet and contact me here via PM or in this thread. I hope that you all find this helpful. And again, if you are not into math, just put in the numbers in the spreadsheet and use the cost per model that’s shown there. Even if you completely leave out abilities and magic, as long as you make Heros/Monsters/Wizards/Warmachines cost 10 points more, I think this will be fairly balanced, again, at least way better than using just Wounds/Model count to play games. Hope this helps.
Peace out,
CoruptCopy
P.S. Updates to follow as often as I can. But please keep in mind, I have a day job and no one is paying me to design this game. Hint! Hint! GW, if you need a game designer, get in touch. :p
Here’s how the spreadsheet works: rather than just adding all the numbers together or using wounds or whatever, I’ve actually figured out a way to determine an “actual” amount of probability using fairly basic math principles. If you find errors or issues, please let me know so that I can correct them. For Wounds, instead of making each Wound a point, I figured out the “effective” number of Wounds by looking at the Save of the model and comparing it to the Wounds. You can see the actual formulas on the spreadsheet, at any time. But basically, if you have a 4+ save, you are saving “statistically” half the time. Now I know that the dice don’t actually end up that way. We all have bad, bad dice from time to time, but “statistically” that’s how it should go. So if my model has 10 Wounds and a 4+ Save, to kill that model, statistically, the enemy will have to wound it 20 times. I hope that makes sense. So that model, for it’s Wounds/Saves value has a calculated cost of 20.
Next we do basically the reverse calculations for Melee/Ranged attacks. If a model does 20 Attacks, and Hits on a 4+, then statistically it will hit on 10 of those attacks. Next for to Wound, let’s say it has a 4+ again. Then it will Wound on half again, down to 5 Wounds, on average. Now let’s look at the actual damage. If the model does 1 damage per attack, then just use the 5 as points value to add to our Wounds/Saves calc. If it does 2 damage per attack, then double it. And so on. That’s the basics.
Here’s the other/more complicated stuff: What about Rending/Range/etc.? I’ve factored in Rending by multiplying it by the amount of Damage the attack does since, I would argue that each Damage is “better” if it Rends. If the Rend is 2, then this becomes a multiplier. If it is 1, then it just adds in the damage again. For Range on Melee I just added in the number. If it is a 1, that attack costs 1 point. If it’s a 3, that’s three more points. We can debate whether or not this too should be a multiplier. My thoughts are that if you are playing a huge horde army, a high Melee range may actually change the outcome of some attacks, but I think that it will most of the time be fairly negligible. Debate this below/with me, by all means. As for Ranged attacks, I’ve assumed (rightly or wrongly) an average range of 12. So when you type in the Ranged value of the attack, that number is divided by 12 and then used as a multiplier. If the range of the attack is 24, then it doubles the cost of that attack because that’s a huge range. If the range is only 8, then it will cut the cost of that attack by 25%. I realize that 12 may not be the average range, but as long as the value we pick is used consistently across the board to determine ranged attack points cost, then it should all be balanced equally. The only quest is whether or not this is balancing out ranged versus melee. Here’s my answer to that: most Ranged units have a (crappy) melee attack too, so that unit is going to cost more than a unit that only has Melee. Therefore, an all melee army can take more models than an all ranged army, which should push the player to play with a more balanced army, a mix of both, than all one or the other. But you can do whatever you like. You’ll quickly see that units that have lots of attacks cost more points because they have the potential to do more damage. Duh, right!
For Movement values, I did the same thing as with Ranged attacks only I chose an “average” value of 5. Again, this is a guess, really, but it should balance fairly well. Models with high move, cost more. Models with low move, cost less.
You will note that Cavalry units, due to high move/armor/attacks tend to cost a lot of points. However, they also are amazingly effective on the battlefield, so I believe this is what balance is all about.
What about Bravery? Bravery, until we see some sort of Fear/Bravery test coming up is effectively useless for single model units, so in order to show this, if the minimum unit size is 1 model, the Bravery cost is 1 point per model (hence if you can take 5 of them, then it costs 5 points total, but if it is just a single model always then it is just one point, so it does still scale for units that have minimum size of 1). If the minimum unit size is higher than 1, I do this calculation: Bravery divided by Minimum unit size equals points cost per model. In this way, we see that a unit with 10 Bravery and 10 models is still only paying 1 point per model for Bravery, whereas a unit with only 5 models is paying 2 points. Why is that? That’s not balanced, right? Actually, it really is because that smaller unit is benefiting more from that high Bravery value than the larger unit. If the small unit isn’t wiped out in an attack, let’s say two models survive, then we take the Bravery of 10 and subtract 3 (because three models died) and get a value of 7, which means, that unit will not lose models due to Battleshock unless there is some special rule/ability that messes with their Bravery. They are effectively immune to Battleshock. Same scenario only with the larger unit: let’s say 7 models out of our 10 man unit get destroyed. Now we have an effective Bravery of 3, and potentially are going to lose models on our Battleshock roll. What’s the point? Well, taking more models in either situation is beneficial, but this balances out what models are more likely to remain on the table due to autopassing Battleshock than not. Many units only pay 1 point per model for Bravery, but some (Daemons!) pay more since they are highly unlikely to fail.
Additional small points: What about D6/D3/Monster damage Tables/Etc.? For the dice rolls, I just used the average. So on D6, the average is technically 3.5, so that’s the number I input. For D3, it’s 1.5. Again these are statistical methods and in practice not always accurate, but we have to try something, right? Also, don't input any negative numbers for Rending. If it is a Rend of  2, just type in 2.
For Monster damage tables, at first I started running numbers for the whole table and concluding the average amount that that value would often be, and then I threw my hands in the air and asked just what the hell I was trying to do here, really? I mean, if I bring a Bloodthirster to the table, I’m not bringing it for the value of what it can do when it’s about to die. I’m bringing it to stomp face when it is still near full strength. So I just used the fully healed stats in all of those tables. You can debate whether or not this is fair. In all honesty, in all the games I’ve played so far, I would be more likely to increase the points of most of the Monster models than decrease them, so using the best values is actually doing just that. This is also the reason for the 10 points additional cost per Monster. I would also do 10 points for Warmachines, but I haven’t gotten to any of those yet. And again, I’m play testing when I can, but I want to give this to the community so that we all can play test this and determine if this does in fact balance the game somewhat (at least better than the Wounds/Models method).
So what about Abilities and Magic? This is where things get funky. If an Ability is really good, such as reroll all failed saves, I suggest we make that expensive, like 10 points, because that effectively doubles the amount of wounds that model has. Likewise, if it is reroll all failed hit/wound rolls, that’s effectively doubling the models attack value/damage output. For most Abilities though I made them cost 1 to 3 points based upon how “good” I thought they were. For single model units, this “arbitrary” system needs work. If the Ability or Magic does damage, I calculated it just like an Attack and typed in the number. So if it takes a 7 to cast (on two dice that’s effectively 50% To Hit, right?) and does D6 Mortal Wounds, I assume that half the time you will be doing 3.5 Mortal Wounds (which I think is a Rend of 5, effectively). Am I overcosting this? Maybe. We can debate it. Mortal Wounds though are pretty hardcore, so they should cost more. In the end, I just want the abilities to be balance, so if a unit has reroll all 1’s to Hit and another unit has that same type of ability in another Faction, it should cost the same. Again, for large model count units, these costs are absorbed because I divided the cost per minimum model size. For single model units, though, the cost is exactly what we type in for the ability cost. This is the ONLY part of this system that involves us not just typing in the exact stat from the WarScroll. This is the ONLY part, therefore, that is in anyway based upon opinion. For large units, again, it basically is negligible. So feel free to debate how much a spell or ability on a Hero should cost, by all means. This will require some balancing act too.
Also, I tried to keep single model units to whole numbers that were multiples of 5. In other words, if my method calculated that a Bloodthirster model should be 133 points, I pushed that up to 135. If it told me that a Great Unclean One is 101 points, I dropped that to 100. This just seems way easier to balance out the points cost of an army than to have that one extra point lingering there preventing you from taking another model or something silly like that.
If a unit had multiple weapons options, I wrote the Weapon in under Custom and made two separate entries for the unit. For instance, say you could run that unit with Axes or Blades. I put in Axes first and only used that attack value to calculate points. Then for the next entry I used the Blades. While I still have LOTS of models/units/WarScrolls to enter, so far the cost difference has been negligible. So let me give GW at least this much credit: they have balanced the individual choices of models fairly well so far, in my opinion, against themselves. If there is the option for a special weapon for every five models, or something like that, I calculated the cost of that single model with the special weapon. So far, these models tend to cost 23 points more than their regular counterparts.
Finally, as for Battalions, I would just take the models as there “normal” points cost from the spreadsheet and assume that, as in 40k, the bonuses are free as long as you take all the appropriate models. I feel like most of the Battalions/collections of models are fairly balanced by forcing you to take certain models that maybe you would not normally use. Debate this at your leisure.
I think I have explained everything, but if you have any questions, please look over the spreadsheet and contact me here via PM or in this thread. I hope that you all find this helpful. And again, if you are not into math, just put in the numbers in the spreadsheet and use the cost per model that’s shown there. Even if you completely leave out abilities and magic, as long as you make Heros/Monsters/Wizards/Warmachines cost 10 points more, I think this will be fairly balanced, again, at least way better than using just Wounds/Model count to play games. Hope this helps.
Peace out,
CoruptCopy
P.S. Updates to follow as often as I can. But please keep in mind, I have a day job and no one is paying me to design this game. Hint! Hint! GW, if you need a game designer, get in touch. :p
Last edited by coruptcopy on Fri Aug 07, 2015 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I am playtesting for AoS via the PPC. Check it out:
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
 Koonitz
 Mighty Manufactorium of MiniWarGaming Posts
 Posts: 2833
 Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 8:20 pm
 Ribbons Earned:
 Location: Grande Prairie, AB, CA
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
I think he means tocoruptcopy wrote:Are you suggesting that I post just the points and then in a second post post some of the explanation. Then make another and another short post until it's all complete?
space out your paragraphs
to break up the text and
make it easier to read.
To put it bluntly, I sure as heck didn't read your original post. Blocks o' text are painful to read.
Armies:
40k: Knights Cynosure Iron Hands successor chapter, House Terryn Questor Imperialis, Thousand Sons/Tzeentch Daemons
30k: Thousand Sons
Age of Sigmar: Sylvaneth, Disciples of Tzeentch
40k: Knights Cynosure Iron Hands successor chapter, House Terryn Questor Imperialis, Thousand Sons/Tzeentch Daemons
30k: Thousand Sons
Age of Sigmar: Sylvaneth, Disciples of Tzeentch
 Kovlovsky
 Epic MiniWarGaming Poster, 'nuff said
 Posts: 5758
 Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 6:40 pm
 Location: Québec
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
The best way to organise your text is to make a paragraph for each of your ideas.
Forum's NKVD Cpt. Kovlovsky
40k : 3945 points of Thousand Sons
380 pts of Tzeentch Daemons of Chaos
Thousand Sons WiP : http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 6&t=114889
Fantasy : OnG
40k : 3945 points of Thousand Sons
380 pts of Tzeentch Daemons of Chaos
Thousand Sons WiP : http://www.miniwargaming.com/forum/view ... 6&t=114889
Fantasy : OnG

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:35 pm
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
I had it in paragraphs, but when I copied and pasted it in from the document, it didn't keep the tabs. I have now reformatted the original post and moved the explanation of how the spreadsheet actually works to a second post. Thanks for the suggestions on formatting of the post itself. After all, if no one can read the thing, then no one can use it. In the meantime, anyone have any suggestions or ideas about what I'm actually saying/posting for: Age of Sigmar points costs?
I am playtesting for AoS via the PPC. Check it out:
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 5
 Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2014 4:35 pm
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
So I've scoured the Interwebs to see if anyone is interested in my points system and if anyone else is doing anything like this, and I've found a group from Sweden (go fig) who are using nearly the exact same calculations as me only their points values are roughly doubled. If you've read how my spreadsheet calculates points based off percentage to do damage and to save wounds, then theirs does basically the same thing too. Since they appear to already have people play testing theirs and have already put out beta rules for every army (which I have gone over and so far they seem to match my own findings only roughly doubled costs for everything), I am planning on discontinuing my spreadsheet in order to begin play testing theirs. Here's a link to their site which contains a suggested rules tweak document, that mostly "fixes" summoning, as well as point costs for every army:
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com/
The AoS stuff is under PPC Comp and Lists (PPC standing for Project Points Cost). You can download everything for free. They are looking for feedback and playtesters, so if you thought my idea had any merit, I highly suggest you help play test their system as it uses similar math to determine a points value that isn't speculative. Their main thread is on Dakka (I know it's probably not cool to promote another site, but I want everyone looking for points for this game to know that a group out there is doing a great job at this and that if we all unite, I think this game can be, and maybe already has been, balanced to some degree).
I'm looking forward to playtesting some more of the PPC tomorrow. So far so good. If anyone really wants to use my spreadsheet, feel free to continue to do so, but know that unless there's support for it, I'm discontinuing my work on it, though you still have the resources to input stats and use it as much as you like.
Thanks for any comments so far and in the future. Hope you'll all join me in playtesting the PPC and keeping Age of Sigmar alive and well!
Blood for the Blood God!
CoruptCopy
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com/
The AoS stuff is under PPC Comp and Lists (PPC standing for Project Points Cost). You can download everything for free. They are looking for feedback and playtesters, so if you thought my idea had any merit, I highly suggest you help play test their system as it uses similar math to determine a points value that isn't speculative. Their main thread is on Dakka (I know it's probably not cool to promote another site, but I want everyone looking for points for this game to know that a group out there is doing a great job at this and that if we all unite, I think this game can be, and maybe already has been, balanced to some degree).
I'm looking forward to playtesting some more of the PPC tomorrow. So far so good. If anyone really wants to use my spreadsheet, feel free to continue to do so, but know that unless there's support for it, I'm discontinuing my work on it, though you still have the resources to input stats and use it as much as you like.
Thanks for any comments so far and in the future. Hope you'll all join me in playtesting the PPC and keeping Age of Sigmar alive and well!
Blood for the Blood God!
CoruptCopy
I am playtesting for AoS via the PPC. Check it out:
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
The Age of Sigmar Project Points Cost!
Points cost for ALL armies, including unit upgrades and special abilities!
http://ageofwargamers.blogspot.com
 Arnathos
 MiniWarGaming Grand Marshall
 Posts: 4681
 Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:08 pm
 Ribbons Earned:
 Location: Oulu, Finland.
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
So, if you base your points system off the ability to do and save wounds, how do you account for synergy between different units? Empire state troops and crossbowmen are nothing special on their own, but in large numbers, or with the support of a general and a state troop battalion they become extremely efficient, but only in certain circumstances.
Time will tell... Sooner or later... Time will tell.
WH40k:
IG 5000pts[95% Painted]
Word Bearers 10000pts[89% Painted]
WHFB:
Empire 5000pts[95% Painted]
FYI, I'm Dutch, not Finnish, I just live there.
WH40k:
IG 5000pts[95% Painted]
Word Bearers 10000pts[89% Painted]
WHFB:
Empire 5000pts[95% Painted]
FYI, I'm Dutch, not Finnish, I just live there.

 MiniWarGaming Zealot
 Posts: 396
 Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:29 pm
 Ribbons Earned:
 Location: Sierra Vista, AZ, United States
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
I don't want to derail your thread, and I certainly don't want to "poo poo" your work.
However, I don't think AoS is broken, nor needs fixing.
Generally speaking, points systems are only going to be of value when you examine the units in a "gaming vacuum." For example, VC Skeletons may not be top of the food chain when you evaluate them raw, but you throw in a successful casting of Van Hels (second pile/in and combat phase), the value of said skeletons nearly doubles.
As a history, GW long ago said they don't use a pure metric for evaluating points costs (and I really wish I could remember exactly where I read that  I want to say a WD during the Paul Sawyer years), but rather they cost things based on "what feels right".
With that concept in play, I think it is easy to confirm that the army systems in WHFB were more designed to decide "immediate game environment concepts" (read, "How big a game are we playing?") and less what is considered "fair". For example, constraining armies to a low points game has a more detrimental impact on what an Ogre Kingdoms player can bring to the table than it does a Skaven player. Further evidence to support this is the assorted comp systems that have arisen in order to "balance" the tournament environment.
By all means continue to develop your system, and I hope you get tons of support for it. I don't believe that the game needs, or that the warscrolls are written in a manner that conveniently supports, a points based system however.
However, I don't think AoS is broken, nor needs fixing.
Generally speaking, points systems are only going to be of value when you examine the units in a "gaming vacuum." For example, VC Skeletons may not be top of the food chain when you evaluate them raw, but you throw in a successful casting of Van Hels (second pile/in and combat phase), the value of said skeletons nearly doubles.
As a history, GW long ago said they don't use a pure metric for evaluating points costs (and I really wish I could remember exactly where I read that  I want to say a WD during the Paul Sawyer years), but rather they cost things based on "what feels right".
With that concept in play, I think it is easy to confirm that the army systems in WHFB were more designed to decide "immediate game environment concepts" (read, "How big a game are we playing?") and less what is considered "fair". For example, constraining armies to a low points game has a more detrimental impact on what an Ogre Kingdoms player can bring to the table than it does a Skaven player. Further evidence to support this is the assorted comp systems that have arisen in order to "balance" the tournament environment.
By all means continue to develop your system, and I hope you get tons of support for it. I don't believe that the game needs, or that the warscrolls are written in a manner that conveniently supports, a points based system however.
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
This will not work. Doing points for stats are fine, but they are not fixed numbers. You can take a army formation that adds abilities and stats, same with some characters being near by, or units being so large, or certain blessings or spells. Take the Goblin unit... of 30 with spears and shields... put them in a Great Gitmob, have a shaman cast Sneaky Stabbin, and have a Goblin Warboss is within 10"... They go from 1 attack, 5+ to hit, and 4+ to wound with a 6+ save base, but with everything added in they have +1 save for more than 10 models, +2 to hit for 30+ models, +1 attack for the Warboss within 10", +1 to wound and 1 Rend for Sneaky Stabbin, and the Greater Gitmob gives +1 to hit if you outnumber the enemy, and +1 to wound if you outnumber them 2:1. Now the stats are 2 Attacks, 2+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 1 rend and 5+ save.
The best way... and simplest its stick to wounds only. Make the army themed and balanced (no minmaxing or cheese lists) and you should be fine. I have mostly run Skaven and about the only unit that this does not work for is Slaves. They get so few bonuses from anything and are horrible to start with. You can do little battles with 25 wounds. I found 50 and 75 point armies fun to play. A normal battle on a 4'x6' board would be 100150.
The best way... and simplest its stick to wounds only. Make the army themed and balanced (no minmaxing or cheese lists) and you should be fine. I have mostly run Skaven and about the only unit that this does not work for is Slaves. They get so few bonuses from anything and are horrible to start with. You can do little battles with 25 wounds. I found 50 and 75 point armies fun to play. A normal battle on a 4'x6' board would be 100150.
I made the move to professionally painting 3 years ago. I paint a good mix between speed and quality. This keeps prices low, like a typical 2K 40k army is under $500.
My painting services:https://www.facebook.com/toddabbottpainting
My painting services:https://www.facebook.com/toddabbottpainting

 MiniWarGaming Zealot
 Posts: 396
 Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:29 pm
 Ribbons Earned:
 Location: Sierra Vista, AZ, United States
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Todda,
Totally agreed. Even then I avoid the wounds issue. As you pointed out, 40 wounds of Slaves doesn't equate to 40 wounds of just about anything else. The ONLY advantage I've found for slaves so far is to act as shortlived tar pits, pinning down units while other units maneuver into position. Even then, there is room for discussion if I wouldn't be better served with another block of 20 Stormvermin over a horde of slaves.
Totally agreed. Even then I avoid the wounds issue. As you pointed out, 40 wounds of Slaves doesn't equate to 40 wounds of just about anything else. The ONLY advantage I've found for slaves so far is to act as shortlived tar pits, pinning down units while other units maneuver into position. Even then, there is room for discussion if I wouldn't be better served with another block of 20 Stormvermin over a horde of slaves.

 Now we're getting somewhere...
 Posts: 7
 Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 4:44 pm
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Per wound Stormvermin are the clear choice over Slaves or Clanrats.
If for some fluffy/do not like to proxy reason you do not have any Stormvermin at your disposal and playing a wound cap game would you take slaves or Clanrats?
In a small wound cap game of say 60 you are likely not to take a unit with more than 20 models.
20 Clanrats with rusty blades would get:
20 attacks, hitting on 4s (ignoring strength in numbers as assume one will die pretty quick)
5+ save with shields
20 Slaves with rusty blades would get:
40 attacks, hitting on 5’s
6+ save (5+ with shields but don’t bother I want them to die)
Through “Cornered Rats” a chance to inflict mortal wounds for every slave that flees through battleshock – which is very likely
In this situation I would take the 20 Slaves.
Tactically it makes your choice of who to give inspiring presence to easier as you will always want the slaves to take Battleshock tests. Same with arcane shield. No need to consider casting it on your Slaves unit as you want them to die. They have double the number of attacks. They will only hit a third of the time but get to roll twice as many dice. In small games weight of fire should not be underestimated. The clincher for me is the chance to cause mortal wounds.
As soon as you put the Clanrats in units of 3040 plus I would say they regain the edge due to Strength in Numbers.
Obviously it’s a bit of a moot point because… just take Stormvermin.
If for some fluffy/do not like to proxy reason you do not have any Stormvermin at your disposal and playing a wound cap game would you take slaves or Clanrats?
In a small wound cap game of say 60 you are likely not to take a unit with more than 20 models.
20 Clanrats with rusty blades would get:
20 attacks, hitting on 4s (ignoring strength in numbers as assume one will die pretty quick)
5+ save with shields
20 Slaves with rusty blades would get:
40 attacks, hitting on 5’s
6+ save (5+ with shields but don’t bother I want them to die)
Through “Cornered Rats” a chance to inflict mortal wounds for every slave that flees through battleshock – which is very likely
In this situation I would take the 20 Slaves.
Tactically it makes your choice of who to give inspiring presence to easier as you will always want the slaves to take Battleshock tests. Same with arcane shield. No need to consider casting it on your Slaves unit as you want them to die. They have double the number of attacks. They will only hit a third of the time but get to roll twice as many dice. In small games weight of fire should not be underestimated. The clincher for me is the chance to cause mortal wounds.
As soon as you put the Clanrats in units of 3040 plus I would say they regain the edge due to Strength in Numbers.
Obviously it’s a bit of a moot point because… just take Stormvermin.
Re: Fixing Age of Sigmar: Points using Spreadsheet
Best suggestion I've seen for balancing AoS yet: MSRP (Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price). So before the game, you and your opponent agree to play a $600 match. Easy! Cynical, but easy!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest