Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lowercaseM

The Costs of Unique Figures

Recommended Posts

The recent pages of the Bespin! topic have centered around unique figures and how they cost so much more than the equally powerful - and yet still cheaper - Bossk. The costs of unique figures is a rather complex topic, and I wanted to address it more fully here and see if something can be done about that, without directly address the specific costs of any on unit (that's another topic for another day!).

 

Many problems with unique figures aren't simply ... unique ... to them, but rather exist for any single figure deployment group. For purposes of discussion, I will be comparing the regular Stormtrooper group with a single figure group that costs 2 points, and consists of only a single regular Stormtrooper, this way the only variable in play is the number of figures in the group (since 3 instances of our single figure group would be equivalent to the standard deployment group).

 

When compared to the multifigure deployment group, the single figure deployment group falls short.

  • No Reinforcements. A single figure group can't be reinforced, only redeployed. While in our given example this is a minor issue, there are two cases where it becomes an important distinction: cases like Tusken Raiders where the reinforcement cost/figure is less than the deployment cost/figure, and cards that require reinforcement to trigger such as the Agenda card “Perpetual Reinforcements” or require you to place a figure near others of its deployment group.
  • Less effective activations. If you are attacking with a multifigure group, you make multliple attacks, or you can move to different locations, rapidly reinforce a location, and generally do more in a single activation, which means your opponent can't react to it. Consider the scenario where you can interact with a token to get points, but the token is behind a door. Our single figure group can’t do that in a single activation, which means he would open the door but not be able to reach the token, giving the opponent an opportunity to react and even prevent it, but a multifigure group could have one figure open the door, and another figure move and interact with the token, all before the opponent can react to it. Which brings me to the next point, telegraphing.
  • Telegraphing your moves. The nature of any turn based game is that every move you make gives your opponent more information about your overall strategy, knowledge they can then use to stymie you. With a multifigure group you can enact plans while giving your opponent fewer opportunities to react.
  • Losing the single figure costs you the whole group. Admittedly this is obvious but it has severe consequences. In skirmish, it means that the moment that one figure is defeated, your opponent gains the points for it. A multifigure group requires all of the figures to be defeated, allowing for tactics such as splitting up the group to prevent TPK if an engagement goes bad, or sending the last member of the group running away so they can’t be killed. Rather than taking out two Stormtroopers and still having nothing to show for it, you would have gotten points for the two figures you defeated. My last skirmish game I played a trooper squad and ended the game with 3 groups that had only one trooper left. My opponent had defeated 6 Stormtroopers (two of them elites) and had nothing to show for it. Additionally, when combined with the lack of reinforcements, it gives your attachments a more limited life span in skirmish, while in campaign, agenda cards that grant a special ability, and discard after a group is defeated are much more risky and prone to failure – even if you had three of the same upgrade, if you lose, then redeploy two figures, the newly deployed ones will not have the upgrade. Meanwhile, if you have a group and can reinforce, you could reinforce that group to keep from losing the upgrade.
  • They still cost an entire open group. This is only for campaign, but the IP only has a limited number of open groups. A single figure deployment group takes up the same number of open groups as an entire squad of Stormtroopers (the number is 1). Especially on missions with a small number of open groups, this can be a real problem.

In addition to the weakness of single figure deployment groups, unique figures have one extra weakness: No redundancy. If you have two Imperial officers, and lose one, you’ll be weaker but you at least have an officer around to command. In campaign, you could even redeploy the officer you lost for 2 Threat and you’re back in action. Unique figures cannot do that. You have one chance to make a unique figure worthwhile, and if they are defeated before that, you can’t get them back. This makes uniques even riskier than other single figure deployment groups simply on the basis of what they are, even before you get into whether they are overcosted or useless.

In fact, far as I can figure it, the only situation where single figure deployments have an advantage is in the number of activations they have available, but in skirmish, that doesn’t matter as much due to the pass rule, and in campaign there are other limiters, like threat and the previously mentioned open groups.

For this reason I contend that unique figures should all be cheaper than equally powerful multifigure groups. Consider that the most commonly used single figure groups are either cheap (Imperial officers, Gideon, C3PO), have some unique ability and enough survivability to make it worthwhile (Leia), or are the right balance of everything –including cost! – to be worthwhile (Luke). As an aside, this is part of why I think mercenaries struggle: Rebels and Imperials both have 3 figure groups to fill things out, and solid, reasonably cheap 2 figure groups. Most mercenary groups are 1 or 2 figures so that even with the same number of deployments, they have only a fraction as many figures.

This is part of why arguments about how much so-and-so should cost tend to go nowhere conclusive: They often don’t acknowledge the inherent weakness in the figure simply because it is a single figure deployment. This is also why I’m not worried about Bossk being OP: He’s starting out with such a serious disadvantage to begin before points and abilities and stats are assigned that he needs to be awesome to make for it. Or, you know, pretty good and dirt cheap. One of those two.

The rule of thumb I’ve being thinking about is that single figure deployments they should cost no more than their health, and often dramatically less.

 

Being a lover of the campaign, which is my main draw to the game, allies and villians are near and dear to me. I want them to be brought in. It makes it more fun and interesting. However, especially for villains, the cost to use them is often too much. You have to spend Influence to buy a mission, then you have to win the mission (by no means guaranteed), then you have to spend an open group on them (remember they are unique and so the troubles with single figures and open groups is made worse), then get the threat to deploy them, and then use them trying to get their worth. Or just deploy a squad of elite stormies and call it a day. Let us assume a villain with an appropriate cost is created. That takes care of the threat problem, at least he’s worth his points now but that still a lot of effort to go through to bring him in. What of existing villains and allies?  What can we do now?

I’ve been thinking that perhaps the campaign should reward you for bringing a villain or an ally. If the IP brings a villain and wins, he gains an influence point and maybe a point reduction in bringing that villain in future missions. But if the rebels manage to take out the villain, they get a bounty of, say, 100 credits per hero, even if they lose the mission. If the rebels bring a unique ally, simply reverse the rewards. This provides an interesting risk/reward mechanic to it beyond the simple “Is this guy worth the cost” question that will often be “no” for many existing villains and allies.

 

I’m not intending to get into a discussion on specific figures, but more wanting to address the inherent imbalance caused by the number of figures in a group, which I’ve not seen any serious discussion of. Do you guys think I’m off base? Am I exaggerating the trouble with single and unique figure groups?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single figure groups have a few other problems, they're efficient to kill, they take conditions poorly and they don't benefit from other cards as much.

 

If you hit a 3 wound stormtrooper for 5, you've wasted 2 wounds.  If you hit it for 2, then you have to waste an entire second action doing 1 wound in order to kill it.

 

Things like stun or bleed aren't that big of a deal on a single trooper, but it's pretty crippling to your massively overpointed RG champ.

 

Attachments like combat vet will add 6 extra wounds to a 3 figure squad but only 2 to a single figure squad.

 

However all these aside the biggest problem of the over pointed units is they come nowhere close to dealing out the damage equal points of troopers do.  Things like attachments or conditions just magnify this underlying problem.  The exception being Sorin because he allows assassin droids and probe droids to stun the crap out of the Rebels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion that I think needs to be had.  I'm not opposed to cheaper, or more powerful uniques, I just want the developers to have a system to assess cost that is not arbitrary, and takes these in-obvious factors into account.  I was guilty of it as well, and till it was pointed out to me.  I was comparing the single character with a single character in multi-unit group, and I can see now that isn't a fair comparison.  You must compare the group as a whole.  I don't thin a single character, even a Darth Vader or a Boba Fett should have the power multiple characters, so i support better assessing their cost.  Not that FF will change it, but it would be nice to get a little consensus among players so that the information is out there in case an individual player wants to modify them as a house rule.  As I've considered some of the things written in the Bespin thread, I agree those early uniques are priced too high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion that I think needs to be had.  I'm not opposed to cheaper, or more powerful uniques, I just want the developers to have a system to assess cost that is not arbitrary, and takes these in-obvious factors into account.

I agree. I really wish they would take the time to hire a serous math head to do some consultation on these sorts of things, not doing the creative work just doing the math of ensuring accurate costing.

I wonder if the initial set were rated purely on combat prowess. In a one on one fight, the uniques are probably costed right. Seriously, can anyone take Vader in a one on fight? I mean Luke might be able to kite him but that's really dependent on terrain being favourable as force choke offers unavoidable damage if you are in sight.

 

Attachments like combat vet will add 6 extra wounds to a 3 figure squad but only 2 to a single figure squad.

I hadn't thought of that, that's a really good point. Yeah any attachment that applies to a whole group gets more efficient for a multifigure group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion that I think needs to be had.  I'm not opposed to cheaper, or more powerful uniques, I just want the developers to have a system to assess cost that is not arbitrary, and takes these in-obvious factors into account.  I was guilty of it as well, and till it was pointed out to me.  I was comparing the single character with a single character in multi-unit group, and I can see now that isn't a fair comparison.  You must compare the group as a whole.  I don't thin a single character, even a Darth Vader or a Boba Fett should have the power multiple characters, so i support better assessing their cost.  Not that FF will change it, but it would be nice to get a little consensus among players so that the information is out there in case an individual player wants to modify them as a house rule.  As I've considered some of the things written in the Bespin thread, I agree those early uniques are priced too high. 

 

 

I agree. I really wish they would take the time to hire a serous math head to do some consultation on these sorts of things, not doing the creative work just doing the math of ensuring accurate costing.I wonder if the initial set were rated purely on combat prowess. In a one on one fight, the uniques are probably costed right. Seriously, can anyone take Vader in a one on fight? I mean Luke might be able to kite him but that's really dependent on terrain being favourable as force choke offers unavoidable damage if you are in sight.

 

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's that simple. There's a ton of info out there about game design, and the Imperial Propaganda site/Team Covenant (currently down, but you can watch a video here) even interviewed a couple of the IA designers about some of their design decisions. In short, it's difficult and more art than science. In any game system all of your decisions are arbitrary, and things that are obvious in hindsight are not always so clear in the moment. I don't think it's at all possible to anticipate every eventuality in the metagame, particularly as new units, rules, and upgrades are added on top of existing units.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure it's that simple. There's a ton of info out there about game design, and the Imperial Propaganda site/Team Covenant (currently down, but you can watch a video here) even interviewed a couple of the IA designers about some of their design decisions. In short, it's difficult and more art than science. In any game system all of your decisions are arbitrary, and things that are obvious in hindsight are not always so clear in the moment. I don't think it's at all possible to anticipate every eventuality in the metagame, particularly as new units, rules, and upgrades are added on top of existing units.

I think most of us would agree, it would just be nice if FFG would at least put a statement that they hear the community and are looking into our concerns. Sure they dont/wont fix every single issue we feel we have, but at least a couple. Mostly I think the deployment costs of older unique characters is a true concern. We and Id believe FFG want to make sure unique and non unique figures get played.

~D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like skirmish and campaign, but if you're going to talk about balance then Skirmish should be the main focus as the campaign is usually and intentionally unbalanced.

 

I'm no Skirmish expert but not a newbie either. (FWIW: I won a 9-person store championship recently with a Trooper/Officer list.)

 

The original poster (lowercaseM) makes and summarizes some really good points.  I wanted to elaborate with a skirmish bent.

  1. No reinforcements is a downside for everything that's not a Trooper Group with a reinforcement cost of 3 or less.  This is because the Command Card: Reinforcements which lets you add an additional 3 point figure to any Trooper group after 1 has died.  This is one of the best cards in Skirmish right now.  It only costs 2 points and you can have 2 in your command deck!  It serves to further reinforce the other bullet points made about groups.
  2. The reason that figures like 3PO, Gideon, and Imperial Officers are good in skirmish isn't just because they're cheap/good figures, but also because, despite the pass rule, it's still highly advantageous to have more action cards.  (Because you can use your best attackers after your opponent moves within range in the first round, react to telegraphed moves more effectively, and use your smaller activation to steal objectives or finish figures at the end of later rounds.)  If I'm up against a list with less activations than me, I'm pretty happy with my chances no matter my opposition (I try to run 6 or more activation cards).

So, from a skirmish perspective, I think you need a healthy mix of useful low-point cost single figures, and well-costed groups in order to build a powerful army.  It doesn't particularly matter if the single figures are unique or not as long as they are pointed well and there are enough good options for your faction.  

 

Right now, on the cheap support figure front:

  • Scum is in pretty terrible shape (Nexus are the cheapest but don't provide support)
  • Rebels are good with Gideon and 3PO but could use another cheap support figure
  • Imperials are entirely dependent on Officers (which are still very good after the errata).

On the group front:

  • Again Scum is worst with no 3 figure groups and expensive 2 figure groups.
  • Rebels have some good options from Troopers and Sabs
  • Imperials have the most/best options with various Stormtroopers and Royal Gaurds

If you want to see higher pointed uniques on winning skirmish lists then they need to have powerful, team-assisting effects to make them worth playing at their higher cost. (Luke and Leia are the only ones that meet this bar so far but Bossk has a chance).

 

So, what I'm hoping to see from the new Bespin expansion:

  1. More groups and cheap support figures for Scum
  2. More cheap support figures for the Rebels, unique or not
  3. Unique Imperial figures worth playing over Troopers/Officers/Gaurds.

What we've seen so far here with respect the above looks promising so I think FFG is listening.

Edited by nickv2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, it's difficult and more art than science. In any game system all of your decisions are arbitrary, and things that are obvious in hindsight are not always so clear in the moment. I don't think it's at all possible to anticipate every eventuality in the metagame, particularly as new units, rules, and upgrades are added on top of existing units.

 

I agree that balancing is difficult but anticipating the metagame is entirely part of their job if they're going to have IA as a competitive skirmish game.

 

For example, both Magic and Netrunner have professionals who's job is to play future sets before they're printed, find the most powerful strategies, and decide which strategies are too good and which ones need help.  It's not art, it's testing by playing lots of games between skilled players, aka science.

 

I'm actually confident that FFG does the same for all their competitive games.  They made some mistakes with the core set but the same is true with the early sets of Netrunner and Magic.  Now that we all have a better understanding of the game, I'm pretty sure the developers are working to fix the early issues.  The recent errata were a big start in this area and I think we'll see more in Bespin.  Remember that there's a significant about of lead time required for changes to be tested approved and printed in a logical fashion.  Furthermore, it wouldn't do the community any good to have new errata every month.

Edited by nickv2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In short, it's difficult and more art than science. In any game system all of your decisions are arbitrary, and things that are obvious in hindsight are not always so clear in the moment. I don't think it's at all possible to anticipate every eventuality in the metagame, particularly as new units, rules, and upgrades are added on top of existing units.

 

I agree that balancing is difficult but anticipating the metagame is entirely part of their job if they're going to have IA as a competitive skirmish game.

 

For example, both Magic and Netrunner have professionals who's job is to play future sets before they're printed, find the most powerful strategies, and decide which strategies are too good and which ones need help.  It's not art, it's testing by playing lots of games between skilled players, aka science.

 

I'm actually confident that FFG does the same for all their competitive games.  They made some mistakes with the core set but the same is true with the early sets of Netrunner and Magic.  Now that we all have a better understanding of the game, I'm pretty sure the developers are working to fix the early issues.  The recent errata were a big start in this area and I think we'll see more in Bespin.  Remember that there's a significant about of lead time required for changes to be tested approved and printed in a logical fashion.  Furthermore, it wouldn't do the community any good to have new errata every month.

 

 

I agree that this discussion should be skirmish focused.

Points values in campaign are less important. It's more of a narrative driven game. You can always house rule things, and the various attachments and agenda cards change things significantly (more than one or two points cost would).

 

As for FFG playtesting. I'm sure they do some, but I don't think IA is quite big enough yet to do the same level of forward playtesting that Magic, Netrunner and X-wing would get. The team probably just isn't big enough. Would be very interesting to see how the design and testing process goes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to go the opposite direction than normal, take a royal guard. Good unit that currently is reasonably priced. What do you think would be a fair price for a royal guard as a single figure deployment group? What about add a unique? I'm going with 4 and 3 respectively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So to go the opposite direction than normal, take a royal guard. Good unit that currently is reasonably priced. What do you think would be a fair price for a royal guard as a single figure deployment group? What about add a unique? I'm going with 4 and 3 respectively.

This is a good thought exercise.  I totally agree with your numbers; generally unique is a restriction because you can only bring one so the figure can be priced lower.

 

Here are some other numbers I came up with the first number is the actual cost per figure (group size/group cost), the second number is my estimated a single figure cost (i.e. an Imperial Officer), and the third number a unique single figure point cost (i.e. Gideon):

 

rStormtrooper: 2/2/2

eStormtrooper: 3/3/2 (I'm assuming they would loose their focus on buddy's death ability here)

rHeavy Stormtrooper: 3/3/2

eHeavy Stormtrooper: 4/4/3

rSnowtrooper: 2.33/2/2

eSnowtrooper:  3.33/3/3

 

rRebel Trooper: 2/2/2

eRebel Trooper: 3/3/3 (keeps Get Into Position unlike eStormtrooper)

rRebel Saboteur: 2.5/3/2 (assuming recent errata)

eRebel Saboteur: 3.5/4/3 (assuming recent errata)

rEcho Base Trooper: 3/3/2

eEcho Base Trooper: 4/4/3

 

rTrandoshan Hunter: 3.5/3/3

eTrandoshan Hunter: 5/4/4

rTusken Raider: 2.5/2/2

eTusken Raider: 3.5/3/3

rHired Gun: 2/2/2

eHired Gun: 3/3/2

rHK Droid: 4/4/3

eHK Droid: 5.5/5/5

 

I did these rough and quick so I could be a little off but they're good gut numbers.  Some of the models might need a little help/nerfing at these point costs, this could be easily accomplished by adding/removing 1 or 2 Health.  

 

Also note that a lot of existing unique units don't stack up favorably here because they haven't been pointed competitively.  For example, I think Dengar would be fine at 6 points, Loku should be 3, and Mak should be 2.

 

EDIT: Added actual cost per figure (group size/group cost)

Edited by nickv2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So to go the opposite direction than normal, take a royal guard. Good unit that currently is reasonably priced. What do you think would be a fair price for a royal guard as a single figure deployment group? What about add a unique? I'm going with 4 and 3 respectively.

This is a good thought exercise.  I totally agree with your numbers; generally unique is a restriction because you can only bring one so the figure can be priced lower.

 

Here are some other numbers I came up with the first number is a single figure (i.e. an Imperial Officer) the second is a unique single Figure (i.e. Gideon):

 

rStormtrooper: 2/2

eStormtrooper: 3/2 (I'm assuming they would loose their focus on buddy's death ability here)

rHeavy Stormtrooper: 3/2

eHeavy Stormtrooper: 4/3

rSnowtrooper: 2/2

eSnowtrooper: 3/3

 

rRebel Trooper: 2/2

eRebel Trooper: 3/3 (keeps Get Into Position unlike eStormtrooper)

rRebel Saboteur: 3/2 (assuming errata)

eRebel Saboteur: 4/3 (assuming errata)

rEcho Base Trooper: 3/2

eEcho Base Trooper: 4/3

 

rTrandoshan Hunter: 3/3

eTrandoshan Hunter: 4/4

rTusken Raider: 2/2

eTusken Raider: 3/3

rHired Gun: 2/2

eHired Gun: 3/2

rHK Droid: 4/3

eHK Droid: 5/5

 

I did these rough and quick so I could be a little off but they're good gut numbers.  Some of the models might need a little help/nerfing at these prices most easily accomplished by adding/removing Health.  

 

Also note that a lot of existing unique units don't stack up favorably here because they haven't been pointed competitively.  For example, I think Dengar would be fine at 6 points, Loku should be 3, and Mak should be 2.

 

 

I think the most interesting information that I can infer here is that were the group units to be split into individual units they would be fairly priced at their group price divided by the number of units in the group i.e. 9 points for Estormtroopers = 3 points per estormtrooper (if it were a single figure unit).

 

What this really tells me though is that these units are potentially undercosted as the multiple benifits of groups have not been added to the cost of the unit as a whole.

 

Basically for 0 additional points cost multiple figure units get the following benifits:

1) Dont get points for each figure until all in the unit are killed, and the ability to deny points to an opponent by running and hiding away from mission objectives when only 1 figure from a unit left.

2) Multiple attacks during a single activation, allowing focus fire to down more expensive units without the chance for the enemy to potentially recover

3) ability to have the reinforcements command card ( for troopers) virtually put a 3 point figure into play.

 

and probably a few more niche situations like blocking halways etc.

 

so when concerning those issues you really now have to have a good reason to play individual figure units over multiple figure units, typically when you feel you can get the damage output of 3 estormy figures in 1 (Which you basically cant as a squad of eStormies  will usually roll between 12-15 damage in a single activation, with "Squad Training", defensive rolls not withstanding)

Edited by Mace Windu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most interesting information that I can infer here is that were the group units to be split into individual units they would be fairly priced at their group price divided by the number of units in the group i.e. 9 points for Estormtroopers = 3 points per estormtrooper (if it were a single figure unit).

Often but not always: I added actual cost per figure (group size/group cost) to make this more clear.

 

I generally agree with the other conclusions you made: many of the existing single figures should be cheaper (I mentioned some in my post) or have better stats.  Especially if they're unique.

 

Also, FWIW, I often wanted to use fractional points here to give more of a range to the single figures.  I think that FFG painted themselves into a bit of a corner by not scaling up the costs so that they could be more granular: instead they're all bunched around the 2-4 points per figure range.  If everything cost 2 or 3 times as much across the board there would be more room to finagle subtle differences.  Admittedly, the points scale as things are now makes math much easier than if everything was 3x and then tweaked…

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't X-Wing use pretty granular points?  (I've only played a tiny amount of X-Wing.)

Edited by nickv2002

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xwing is 100pts per list, with usually 2 to 8 ships. Ships range from about 12 pts for the cheapest things to 46 for Han Solo in the Falcon. That's base cost before upgrades. 

So yes, there's a lot more flexibility points wise. That being said.... most upgrades are between 0-3 points with only a handful being 4-6. In that sense, the upgrade costs are similar to command deck costs... 0,1,2,3. It's not as limiting as 15pts but it's a similar range. Especially because you have limited types of upgrades... eg, One pilot skill, one missile, one crew etc...

 

I do agree that maybe a 100-50% points increase across the board would be better long term, but it also risks being too complicated. You could make 1000pt list like warhammer, but then you'd need to count each individial storm trooper, and have the flexibility of buying 2 or 4 or 7 of them. It would kind of defeat the whole purpose of how deployment cards work. And it would probably screw with the campaign too much.

 

I think maybe going to 80 point lists and most things costing double what they do now, would be an interesting compromise.  It would certainly give more room to move with some of those 3 figure groups and some skirmish upgrades, but I don't think it would affect unique heroes too much.... though some of the overcosted stuff like dengar and boba fett could be more easily adjusted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that granularity is definately a problem when assigning points for single figures. I also think that the fact that you only play with 40 points is part of the trouble. if darth vader is 1/2 your points, its harder to justify him than when he is only (for example) 1/3 your points. Then maybe you can afford to bring him for the isolated cases where you want his unique talents. Of course, still having the disadvantages of a unique figure, it might not be worth it even then, as there would be more out there to just wipe the floor with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Xwing is 100pts per list, with usually 2 to 8 ships. Ships range from about 12 pts for the cheapest things to 46 for Han Solo in the Falcon. That's base cost before upgrades. 

So yes, there's a lot more flexibility points wise. That being said.... most upgrades are between 0-3 points with only a handful being 4-6. In that sense, the upgrade costs are similar to command deck costs... 0,1,2,3. It's not as limiting as 15pts but it's a similar range. Especially because you have limited types of upgrades... eg, One pilot skill, one missile, one crew etc...

 

I do agree that maybe a 100-50% points increase across the board would be better long term, but it also risks being too complicated. You could make 1000pt list like warhammer, but then you'd need to count each individial storm trooper, and have the flexibility of buying 2 or 4 or 7 of them. It would kind of defeat the whole purpose of how deployment cards work. And it would probably screw with the campaign too much.

 

I think maybe going to 80 point lists and most things costing double what they do now, would be an interesting compromise.  It would certainly give more room to move with some of those 3 figure groups and some skirmish upgrades, but I don't think it would affect unique heroes too much.... though some of the overcosted stuff like dengar and boba fett could be more easily adjusted. 

I thought about this before.  i don't think changing the points total is a good idea.  People will just bring more of the cheaper units.  The core problem is still that the uniques, based on what the bring to the table, cost too much.  THat doesn't change if you just make it an 80 point game.  People just have to buy more miniatures.  I think FFG going back an reassessing the cost of a some units is the only alternative, other than releasing whole new figures, which I'm not keen on.  I hated that there were 6 different Darth Vader characters in Star Wars minis.  It got to the point where every scene in every film required a new figure.  Han Solo -- Millennium Falcon Bowel Evacuator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought about this before.  i don't think changing the points total is a good idea.  People will just bring more of the cheaper units.  The core problem is still that the uniques, based on what the bring to the table, cost too much.  THat doesn't change if you just make it an 80 point game.  People just have to buy more miniatures.  I think FFG going back an reassessing the cost of a some units is the only alternative, other than releasing whole new figures, which I'm not keen on.  I hated that there were 6 different Darth Vader characters in Star Wars minis.  It got to the point where every scene in every film required a new figure.  Han Solo -- Millennium Falcon Bowel Evacuator. 

 

I think you misunderstood what Inquisitorz and I were discussing.  We were simply speculating on scaling the points so there was more room to differentiate figures at small point costs: so Gideon would cost 6 instead of 3 and Regular Stormtroopers would be 12 points.  Using that 2x baseline there would be more room to fine-tune the costs of individual units.  Power creep would not be the goal, nor would releasing many versions of the same characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I thought about this before.  i don't think changing the points total is a good idea.  People will just bring more of the cheaper units.  The core problem is still that the uniques, based on what the bring to the table, cost too much.  THat doesn't change if you just make it an 80 point game.  People just have to buy more miniatures.  I think FFG going back an reassessing the cost of a some units is the only alternative, other than releasing whole new figures, which I'm not keen on.  I hated that there were 6 different Darth Vader characters in Star Wars minis.  It got to the point where every scene in every film required a new figure.  Han Solo -- Millennium Falcon Bowel Evacuator. 

 

I think you misunderstood what Inquisitorz and I were discussing.  We were simply speculating on scaling the points so there was more room to differentiate figures at small point costs: so Gideon would cost 6 instead of 3 and Regular Stormtroopers would be 12 points.  Using that 2x baseline there would be more room to fine-tune the costs of individual units.  Power creep would not be the goal, nor would releasing many versions of the same characters.

 

 

Yeah, sorry if I went off on a tangent.  I wasn't aiming that at you, I was aiming it FFG.  I did misunderstand that you were going to scale up the lower cost figures.  I personally think that there are far fewer figures that need to be scaled down, but that's just me.  You are right, just adjusting the scale in either direction would help to make those higher cost figures more useful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...