Squad Point Values

One of the more problematic issues with the game is that the points values are not published in the rule book. 

You're stuck with the cards for points values ... and options, but that's another issue.

I only have what's in the big box (so no Wave II mechs (or equivalent cards) like the MAC or Female Power Armor. So their point values are unknown to me.


Good news is that core artillery squad card does come in the big box ... as to the mini-cards for using them as support options ... and those have points values on them! Bad news, I won't be able to post them here until later tonight.

Might be a good time to hijack the thread and discuss point values in general, as some of them seem a bit off.

Nice Mike! Where did you get the points for the other stuff?





Now for a minor derail on value. Let's compare/contrast:

Zentraedi Attack Squad
(80pts)
1x officer pod 
9x battle pod 

Zentraedi Attrition Squad (70pts)
12x battle pod

We know the support choice for the officer's pod is 20pts, so if we add him to the second squad (now 90pts; +10pts more than the attack squad) you get three extra battle pods.

What's the rub here? You get discounted pods but now have one less support choice for the squad?

Is there another way to get three pods for 10pts? Buying them as a support option gets you six pods for 35pts, which isn't cheaper.




Are their other strangely valued points out there?

Hey Mike

I tried looking at those images you had on that link about 2 posts back. Better sheets, and such.

Unfortunately I couldn't seem to get the images to pull up...

Any suggestions..

I agree on this one.  The Heavy Pod needs to have it's cost dropped to 25 for 2 units.  The reason I was given for the cost was to ensure that they were not common on the battlefield but stayed rare.

John

Thanks for backing me up. I think the 25 points that Mike projected is a little better for the Serauhaug.

But in regards to the Phalanx. Most games only go 5 turns (if they live that long). The Phalanx is still a better mech, but it would have to be an amazing day to see it uses all 11 volleys (Not like in the days of the old Robotech RPG where your Phalanx/Spartan could shoot the entire wad).

Mike

I managed to open the docs you had. They are amazing. I really like the Combat Modifier sheet. I was going to do my own, but you did it for me. Thanks

In regards to some of your vehicles and infantry. Where are your rules for vehicles and infantry. The sheets look great.

Unfortunately, I worry a little bit about vehicles and infantry. I am afraid it will be like Battletech where infantry went from fun to kill popcorn to unkillable (and not fun). I say this becuase I am afraid of Michael Bay. I don't care how awesome that marine is. Punking a named Transformer is just disrespectful to the genre.

Also is there something that makes mechs better than vehicles. I thought being powered by protoculture was supposed to make mechs "more awesome", thus the shift from vehicles to mechs. Maybe I am remebering that wrong. Is it harder for vehicles to dodge (more command points?)

Thanks

Ha! If I did not think it wrong I would not have asked PB to change it. The other thing is the Male Power Armor. I think they are a bit on the cheaper side for what they can do. Playtesting will tell.


Vehicles (Hand to Hand Change and Vehicle Addition)
To make a hand to hand attack, an attacking mecha only needs to move into base to base contact with the enemy mecha that it wishes to attack (during the Movement Step), then it may make hand to hand attacks against the figure in base to base contact.

Please note that close formation cannot be utilized during hand to hand combat attacks, by the attacker or defender.

Engaged in Hand to Hand Combat – Once a mecha is in base to base contact with an enemy figure, the two are considered to be engaged in hand to hand combat unless one of the two mecha has the Vehicle or Aircraft traits. If Engaged they cannot attack with weapons systems at all. Additionally, engaged figures cannot be attacked by other figures with weapon systems.

If either figure wishes to move out of base to base contact, then, its player must pay one Command Point to do so. The exceptions are Aircraft are Never engaged in Hand to Hand and mecha attacking vehicles can choose to engage in Hand to Hand combat or not. Note: A figure may move, or change facing, as long as it doesn’t move out of base to base contact with the figure that it is engaged with. If a figure is in base to base contact with multiple enemy figures, it costs one Command Point for each enemy figure in base to base contact with it to be able to move out of hand to hand combat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vehicles: Vehicles are mecha that drive on wheels, tracks, hover sleds or a variety of other methods. They often have the Cumbersome trait. They cannot engage mecha in Hand to Hand combat but can only perform a Body Block or Ram attack as normal by moving into base to base contact with another mecah. IF a vehicle attacked a mecha the mecha they attack may choose to engage the attacking vehicle in Hand to Hand at the time of being attacked. Mecha engaged in Hand to Hand with vehicles are not required to pay a Command Point when disengaging from Hand to Hand combat with a vehicle.

I'll see if I can find my infantry rules. It's not on my thumb drive.

Hey

Actually played a game tonight. Took an attack squad and an artillery squad (with overpriced Serauhaug-Regults).

Only got one shot off of the a Serauhaug. It was a nice shot, but the Veritechs said no more, and took out more than a fair number of my artillery battle pods (all the Serauhaugs).

So...

The Serauhaug's went real fast for the points I paid. The Light Artillery Pods were awesome. Lack of Anti Air Hurts (a lot), and lack of cannon fodder was noticable. You seriously need to attach a regular Regult squad to act as sheilds for the cooler pods Artillery Pods.

Also, the Tenesta regults are not a tremendous buy for 15 points. They are barely better than a battle pod, and the lack of anti missile makes it even closer. However when you consider you just bought 2 Command Points for 15 army points, that isn't to bad. I was afraid to let them engage at one point, I needed those command points.

Sorry this may not be in exactly the right thread, but I thought it was relevant to the Squad point Concept 

The problem with doing a unit-by-unit comparison is that game balance is more than just summing up the parts of a model and coming up with a points value. That is where you start, but better game designers don't end there. The points values of units should be approached synergistically, as a model-by-model comparison may show some units having 'wrong' points costs, but their effect on the entire force could be greater or lesser depending on how the rest of the force plays.

No, but taken as a whole, what kind of effect does adding unit x to force y have on the overall way that force y plays?
I believe the game designers have already stated on Mike's FB group that points values were assigned based on performance in relation to what each unit brought to the entire force, not based on any individual stats.
This is where play testing becomes important.
It's rarely helpful to break a system down by components and try to analyze it by isolating parts and comparing them to other isolated parts. Without consideration as to their contribution to the whole, the value of specific parts cannot be well assessed.

I agree with you to a large extent.
Points system balance is itself an illusion to anyone that thinks that they represent anything other than a means to provide a rough guide to equality. The value of a unit in any particular game session is dependent on so many variables, I can't see how anyone can think of points as being anything other than a broad measure of performance.

I've been playing these games for 30ish years and points are certainly an illusion. A well-tested scenario will give you a better balanced experience than any points-matching.

Points cannot take into account the vast number of variables in a game. At best, they provide an idea of value for an average game of an average force-size on an average-sized table with average dice rolling where players have in relation to the average play tester: a similar force composition, a similar amount/style/size of terrain, play with the same level of competency and use the same play style; or follow the designers' intentions.
The more variation you have in your game, the more freedom players have in what they can do in your game and the greater the number of people playing your game will throw your points system out of balance fast. This is why games like 40K are filled with "Codex Creep" and people complaining about how certain units under- or over-perform.

Your "mechanical" point cost is still determined by "how does this fit into the game in relation to the other stuff in the game" using an arbitrary scale. It neglects to consider how the unit interacts with the other units on both its own and the other side. Throw in some "faction" rules and some interdependent unit abilities, your strictly mechanical approach gets less accurate.

The UEDF is designed to play differently than the Zentraedi. If you had an identical model on each side, where each side is designed to utilize them differently, then they should not cost the same points. Even with the same attributes and capabilities, how they function in each force will be different and not necessarily provide equivalent value.

By the very nature of the two primary sides we currently have in this game, a low-damage blast weapon is going to be far more valuable to the UEDF than the Zentraedi and a high damage single-target weapon is going to be more valuable to the Zentraedi than to the UEDF. Any system that assigns the same points to the same weapon regardless of which side is using it is not accurately reflecting its value.

They shouldn't necessarily cost the same.  A Kryptonite ray gun is a lot more useful to Lex Luthor than it is to the Joker (or Superman, for that matter).  And who said the point cost was arbitrary?

The Zentraedi have access to the Quel-Regult Recon Battlepod, which can give a +1 to hit bonus to everything within 12".  That should be taken into account since it's fairly cheap and can easily give the artillery pods better chances to hit than their UEDF counterparts.

We see this a lot with the Zentraedi.  They are designed to work differently as an army.  The Glaug can bring back an endless supply of Battlepods.  They also provide lots of Leadership points, which the Zents would otherwise lack.  This cost is accounted for somewhere.

As I've already pointed out, and Brian has so wonderfully expanded on, two identical units should not necessarily have the same points cost because they can behave completely differently depending on the rest of the force they are in and the force they are facing. A force is synergistic, you cannot determine the value of the parts without considering the whole.

Nobody other than you is claiming that the assigned points are "arbitrary". The designers clearly stated that they assigned points based on how units function in relation to each other. That is the smart way to assign points because it takes into account performance which means an increased likelihood of balance.

The other way doesn't consider relational performance at all and that is why games that use that type of point assignment end up with greater imbalance and unhappy players decrying "broken" forces.

I'd argue that the kryptonite ray gun is exactly as useful to the Joker as it is to Lex Luthor. It does the exact same thing regardless of which one is using it. The chance that it would be used would vary greatly, but the effect would be the same regardless of who used it.

We can agree to disagree on the finer points. If a basic cost structure that is consistent thoughout the game isn't used to build from, no amount of nebulous 'army as a whole' pricing will be able to create a remotely balanced game. I have seen just as much imbalance from games that took the 'army as a whole' approach. What a unit can do is far more important than what it is supposed to do.

What we get back to, ultimately, is do you trust the designers and the thoroughness of playtesting. I have to say no to both of those at this point.