Points frustration

[NickW]

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, but creating armies to a certain point size has a large degree of frustration to it because the cost of every additional BG, base or upgrade is generally quite large, often a minimum of 8-12 points. This is natural given it uses units, and is quite different to, say, DBM where you could buy a single element for just a few points. (This is even more apparent I think in FOG-R and FOG-N - in some armies of the former a minimum change can be comfortable in double figures). So often you can be left with a large number of points wasted, which seems a bit unfair. Falling 1 pt short when you are adding the smallest possible upgrade of 12 points is really quite frustrating. In the old days of 6thEd Ancients, in some tournaments you were allowed to spend over the points as long as the amount over was not enough to buy any upgrade or bases. So, if the smallest amount you need to spend is 6 pts to do anything, then for a 800 pt army you should be able to spend up to 805 pts. Has anyone given any thought to including this in tournaments or even in the rules themselves?

[gozerius]

That just raises the bar to N+(b-1). Where you will face armies that nearly always exceed N.

[hazelbark]

Also the difference in FOG vs DBM is 797 points is not a big deal. In DBM those extra points could add to a break point of your command so were more significant. Here to get up to 800 from 797 requires a more complicated shift.

Finally 800 points is a lousy level. Encourage people to try 725 or 850. It help break up the tournament perfect lsit mindset.

[NickW]

I don't see a problem with facing armies with just a bit more than the points level. I think it makes the lists fairer. (And I think this is especially the case with FOG-R).

I do agree, though, that 800 pts is an annoying level.

[kevinj]

I've not found this to be a problem at all, I can normally get an army within a few points and, as Dan has said, it's much less of an impact in Fog than DBM.

Another consideration (for me anyway) is that it adds a significant amount of work for the list checker for no real benefit to the player. On the other hand, for a team competition it wouldn't be a problem to allow the team members to swap their odd points.

[philqw78]

What an arse argument. Surely you will find armies better at 807 if the limit is 804, or 659 if the limit is 657.

Or should we have voluntary limits?

[nikgaukroger]

I'm not sure if this has been raised before,

It has and is only an issue for the terminally obsessive

[grahambriggs]

I find the frustration is that I want the army to do a certain number of things and that takes 830 points. Taking the 30 points out with the minimum compromises can be irritating but it does focus the mind a bit as to what's really needed. That can be a long, drawn out process - my Early Persians are on version 21 and no doubt there'll be 21 more with the new rules.

[ShrubMiK]

You mean you USE THE SAME LIST AGAIN?????

I knew I must be doing something wrong

[kevinj]

You mean you USE THE SAME LIST AGAIN?????

No, he just rewrites it a number of times before use!

[Polkovnik]

So often you can be left with a large number of points wasted, which seems a bit unfair.

I've got about 100 army lists saved on my computer that I have used, and I don't think I've ever wasted more than 5 points. That is not a "large number of points wasted".What army list are you looking at that you cannot get the total to within 795 and 800 ?

[timmy1]

I remember one of my early games with Parthian. The quick list in the rules was say 590 points. I was not willing to waste the 10 points and came up with my own 600 point list - had one more BG too boot. It was absolute CARP! It got well and deservedly beaten. The list is what matters not using the number of points exactly.

[ravenflight]

So often you can be left with a large number of points wasted, which seems a bit unfair.

I've got about 100 army lists saved on my computer that I have used, and I don't think I've ever wasted more than 5 points. That is not a "large number of points wasted".What army list are you looking at that you cannot get the total to within 795 and 800 ?

I've not had the problem with FoG:AM, but FoG:R is a LITTLE more prone to it. I find the limit of Infantry battle troops to 6 bases or 6 bases causes an issue of around 45 points. I mean, my list can be at 770 points and can't take a poor or average Regiment, so have to 'take something else'.

I think that's the thing though - generally it's not a case of not being able to make the list you want, not a case of not being able to use the points you're given.

In some cases I find it hard/impossible to create a list I want, so have to do somethig completely different.

[BillMc]

I dont think it is an issue. Just as easy to take a few points under the point limit. The point total, whether it is 800 or 850, just presents the max amount that players have to manage too. I have taken 795 point armies to 800 pts battles. You just have to decide if its worth not using up 5 whole points so that you can get the key units you want, or if you want to give up some key units inorder to max the points by taking other combinations. Its part of the enjoyment of the game in my opinion and the reason we all have multiple lists and bs about them online and at the bar between games. For example, Would it better to only go with 3 generals and get the extra unit, but lose 3 points, or use 4 generals and come out even on points?

Bill

[Scrumpy]

My frustration is designing 801 pt lists and never 800

[ravenflight]

MAYBE we should get 1 point in the rankings for every 10 points you don't spend. I might design a list that has zero points and have a remote chance of winning the comp... only have a chance in a 2 day 4 game comp tho

[prb4]

MAYBE we should get 1 point in the rankings for every 10 points you don't spend. I might design a list that has zero points and have a remote chance of winning the comp... only have a chance in a 2 day 4 game comp tho

The list would be illegal you must have at least two generals!

[NickW]

What an arse argument. Surely you will find armies better at 807 if the limit is 804, or 659 if the limit is 657.

Or should we have voluntary limits?

I think you completely misunderstood the premise...

[NickW]

I've not had the problem with FoG:AM, but FoG:R is a LITTLE more prone to it. I find the limit of Infantry battle troops to 6 bases or 6 bases causes an issue of around 45 points. I mean, my list can be at 770 points and can't take a poor or average Regiment, so have to 'take something else'.

I think that's the thing though - generally it's not a case of not being able to make the list you want, not a case of not being able to use the points you're given.

In some cases I find it hard/impossible to create a list I want, so have to do somethig completely different.

yes, it tends to be more a FOG-R problem - I should have posted it there.

[ravenflight]

MAYBE we should get 1 point in the rankings for every 10 points you don't spend. I might design a list that has zero points and have a remote chance of winning the comp... only have a chance in a 2 day 4 game comp tho

The list would be illegal you must have at least two generals!

Damn you prb - with you 'rules lawyer' types out there I'll NEVER win a comp