Points frustration

[hazelbark]

I am also in favour of having tournaments at varying points sizes to prevent people obsessing about their one perfect list that they use all the time.

Agreed even 785 or 835 for variety.
Hopefully the occasional 5x3 will work as well.

[NickW]

The reason I mention it, which some people seem to miss, is that is does favour some armies (like lack of information does) in that if you have an army with lots of upgrades or cheap troops, it's easy to spend that last 10 or so points. For some armies any additional upgrade or troops will cost a lot (e.g. if all your BGs are already max size or upgraded, or they don't have many options, or all the troops are expensive), hence you may be forced to either give up points or choose a less preferable structure.

[gozerius]

Game just isn't fair. A player is not forced to play any particular army. A player chooses to play the army he or she wants. There are plenty of lists that would be just perfect if the max were just a few points more. On the other hand how many people complain that their army would be better with just a few less points?

[hazelbark]

. On the other hand how many people complain that their army would be better with just a few less points?

Well some armies don't improve with extra points and therefore become vulnerable to armies that do improve with extra points.

[philqw78]

Bactrian greek is better at 800points than it is at 900

[grahambriggs]

the shooty EAP I took to Lisbon was actually a 714 point army:

IC, 2TC
2x6 Immortals
3x4 sup cav
2x2 Elite cav
2x 6 LF
4 LH
6 and 8 poor LF
all have bows except a JLS unit

Of course, it being a 800 point comp, you've got 85 more points that you might as well spend so I upped a TC to a FC, made the poor LF average and gave them all bows and stuck in another unit of LH. The FC was helpful but I'm not sure the rest really was. I suppose I could have bought more immortals.

[ShrubMiK]

Nick, that's all very well, but we still haven't seen a viable solution yet? Unless I am missing something along the way...

You are proposing allowing your expensive and inflexible army to be built to (let's say) 810 points, because it would be unfair if you were forced to only spend (let's say) 790 points.

Now the opponent is going to complain that at 800 points precisely, it is disadvantaged instead.

So what do we do?

Allow opponents to spend a few extra points each game to match the amount its opponent has overflowed beyond 800? Okay for a friendly game, possible but perhaps not very practical in a tournament setting with pre-defined lists.

Allow everybody to spend 810 points right from the start? Now (as has been pointed out a number of times, and you seem be missing or at least not addressing) what has happened is just that the bar is moved, nothing fundamental has changed. Everybody builds to 810 points. You are happy, everybody else is happy,...excpet for somebody who finds that their different expensive, inflexible army just doesn't quite work, he can get 800 points to work, but cannot reasonably spend that last 10. So do we now start saying: should everbody be allowed to spend 820?...etc. etc.

[NickW]

The solution - as I explained at the start - was for everyone to be able to overspend by an amount equal to 1 pt less than the minimum spend allowable for that army. That makes it fairer for everyone.

The reason is that army lists with lots of cheap units or cheap upgrades has an advantage in fixed points over an army with expensive units and expensive/minimal upgrades.

[dave_r]

The solution - as I explained at the start - was for everyone to be able to overspend by an amount equal to 1 pt less than the minimum spend allowable for that army. That makes it fairer for everyone.

The reason is that army lists with lots of cheap units or cheap upgrades has an advantage in fixed points over an army with expensive units and expensive/minimal upgrades.

But that is no solution at all. What if ive taken all the cheap stuff and all i can spend points on is drilled superior heavily armoured knights?

If the points are fair (and they arent bad) then it doesnt make a difference.

[ShrubMiK]

And even aside from that possible issue, all the proposal does is to change from the expensive army being disadvantaged by having fewer points on the table than the cheapy army, to the cheapy army being disadvantaged by having fewer points on the table than the expensive one. I don't see how that is an improvement overall.

[rbodleyscott]

Mortuum flagellas

[kevinj]

He may be flogging a dead one, but it's better than putting it in a burger.

[spike]

1. Buying a stronger whip.
2. Changing riders.
3. Saying things like "This is the way we always have ridden this horse."
4. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they ride dead horses.
5. Increasing the standards to ride dead horses.
6. Appointing a committee to study the dead horse.
7. Waiting for the horse's condition to improve from this temporary downturn.
8. Providing additional training to increase riding ability.
9. Passing legislation declaring "This horse is not dead."
10. Blaming the horse's parents.
11. Acquiring additional dead horses for increased speed.
12. Declaring that "No horse is too dead to beat."
13. Providing additional funding to increase the horse's performance.
14. Commissioning a study to see if private contractors can ride it cheaper.
15. Removing all obstacles in the dead horse's path.
16. Taking bids for a state-of-the art dead horse.
17. Declaring the horse is "better, faster and cheaper" dead.
18. Revising the performance requirements for horses.
19. Saying the horse was procured with cost as an independent variable.
20. Raising taxes (any excuse will do).
21. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position