8th Ed victory points.

[Tanksie]

Better or worse than 7th ed?
I had a really great game against a pestilens skaven army yesterday. At the end of it all I had both my characters 2 bulls from a unit of 12, 3 guts from 9, 1 mournfang from 2 and a sabretusk. He had plenty left on the board as well.

When we tallied up the victory points he was happy to discover that he had only lost about 300 pts(2 units of 16 censer bearers and a unit of 50 skavenslaves).( I hate that the plague chariot thing doesn't give you points unless you kill the priest.) Then it was kinda awkward cause I had to tell him he had taken 21 pts. Even though my army was a mess and both of our forces were majorly messed up he had only killed 1 sabre tusk as a unit.

I think the old half unit rules were fairer and that GW brought in the points only for units killed rules to dumb the game down for the 12 year olds.

What do you guys think?

[Dragoonkin]

Yeah I don't like the "all or nothing" rules for points. It makes giant Horde units have another advantage, in that you can't get ANYTHING from them until they're straight-up dead.

It also makes giant unbreakable units of cheap chaff (zombies and skeletons I'm looking at you) a gigantic pain in the ass, for very little reward. I can kill 70 zombies for 0 VP and they can in return kill four Ogres for 140. Makes no sense.

[Johnny-Crass]

I like it.  Say you cast dwellers on 50 elf spearmen with the old VP rules.  Stats say you kill half, now you can ignore that unit for the rest of the game as you now got points off it.  8th ed VP makes you commit to the game instead of running away.

[Tanksie]

  8th ed VP makes you commit to the game instead of running away.

But does it? you can kill 1 unit and just run away from everything else this way.

[Johnny-Crass]

  8th ed VP makes you commit to the game instead of running away.

But does it? you can kill 1 unit and just run away from everything else this way.

If they really let you get away then they deserve the loss

[MaanNaam]

If they bring back the "half unit, half points" thing then they will have to change the points needed for a win/massacre as well.

As it is you only need 100VP more than your opponent to have a win over him.  When you get half points for half units then gun line armies might enjoy it too much.

I had one game where I had no chance of winning, I had 2 ogres left from a unit of 12 and those 2 ogres would have given me a draw while giving my opponent the win.  I've never had so much fun in WHFB as trying to keep those ogres out of sight and out of range while my opponent was committing everything he had left to killing them.

Personally I like the points system as it is currently.  But to each his own.

P.S.  I lost my 2 ogres because of that damn aura thing of the VC chariot thing (coven throne?) when he rolled max range for it in his turn 6 and just caught me in it.

[Shadowlord]

I like that you have to kill everything or/and make them run off the board, but the VP are too small so we have 10% as victory margin.

[Mr. Cthulhu]

Yeah I don't like the "all or nothing" rules for points. It makes giant Horde units have another advantage, in that you can't get ANYTHING from them until they're straight-up dead.

It also makes giant unbreakable units of cheap chaff (zombies and skeletons I'm looking at you) a gigantic pain in the ass, for very little reward. I can kill 70 zombies for 0 VP and they can in return kill four Ogres for 140. Makes no sense.

This makes complete sense btw, because GW is making us buy loads of models to fill those unbreakable hordes. Makes sense really: Make hordes more effective and a crucial part of the VP system in order to win = sell more models. Which in turn means more glue, and paint, and supplies. This is an obvious selling strategy, but I overlook it sometimes. Good show GW...

Edit: To make my post themed with the topic, my apologies, I like the new VP rules to an extent. I think it's great that my fleeing models don't count as VP, I love that there are no quarters (felt like objective based 40K when there were), although I do believe that half points for half units would still be nice. I can see how a Dwarf gun line could take amazing advantage of this (like they used to), but if you can get to that gun line, you shouldn't have to worry about it that much, especially with Ogres we hit kinda hard.

[Shadowlord]

This makes complete sense btw, because GW is making us buy loads of models to fill those unbreakable hordes. Makes sense really: Make hordes more effective and a crucial part of the VP system in order to win = sell more models. Which in turn means more glue, and paint, and supplies. This is an obvious selling strategy, but I overlook it sometimes. Good show GW...

Except the common soldiery has gone up in points, and thus your point becomes flawed.

They want to sell the new stuff to the ones with armies, and all other models to the rest.

[Mr. Cthulhu]

Except the common soldiery has gone up in points, and thus your point becomes flawed.

They want to sell the new stuff to the ones with armies, and all other models to the rest.

This is true and not true at the same time. There are armies where the points of cores have gone up and some have decreased. Take Ogres for example. A bull for 30 points seems great to me. can it be used effectively? Absolutely, but in higher point matches. But when you think about those higher point games against an army like... I don't know...Empire? (Skaven was too obvious) Well, that's when you start to see hordes of Flagellants and Halbediers and Swords. Even HE's with mass spearmen and DE's with witch elves etc etc. sure, a lot of the points increased, but I don't believe that makes my point flawed because the hordes are still there, and used often.

I completely agree on selling new stuff to the vets and everything in mass quantities to the newbies (which they've always done and which makes sense), but I've never seen a Dwarf horde till 8th, I've never thought of putting a unit of 19 Ironguts filled with Characters until 8th (of course I didn't really start playing Ogres until the new book soooo...) 

It just makes sense of what they're doing. Not bashing GW, they're smart, and they are playing their pieces pretty well.

[MaanNaam]

Was the change to 8th ed really such a big issue for so many people?  I was fielding units of 6-12 ogres strong right off the bat since 8th came out.  I only changed from 4 units of 3-4 to 1-2 units of 6-12.

I already had all the models I needed for 8th.
Did your average armybox really look exactly like your average 7th list?  Only 20 spearmen, only 20 Orcs etc.?

I was running minimum sized units in 7th true, but I was running LOADS of them, with 8th I merely had to put a few of them together.

[D'rthock the Insatiable]

I was about to make the same point MaanNaam.  So what you have a horde?  You still have to spend the same amount of points to make a 2500 point list.  Whether that is broken into smaller units or one big unit, it makes very little difference.  It might make a little difference if you're buying command for each smaller unit (so 2 smaller unit would be slightly more points than 1 larger unit), but this difference is very minor.  Indeed, the change to the army organization chart with requiring 25% of the army be core, might have cost GW money since the newest shiny models would be bought and used less now that more points have to be spent on core.  As such, I doubt the change was made because GW thought they would be raking in the $$$.

[Mr. Cthulhu]

Y'know, that's fair. I may be a little off with this because I really am "starting" in 8th. I played a little in 7th, but now I'm picking up the game a lot more. I was thinking of starting a new army over WE's because they weren't my style, and I was seriously contemplating VCs. I just didn't want to buy horde after horde of skeletons and zombies, and it really made me kind of bitter. But I can understand that when you had a decently sized army in 7th and 8th came around and you decided to horde, instead of having to buy more stuff, you would just put the stuff you have into one unit.

I have yet to go to a tournament in 8th, and I have one coming up semi-soon, but I can't remember VPs that well  (don't have the book with me). Did they FAQ the VPs at all? Or are they as is in the book?

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

8th VP advantage:
- quicker and easier to add up
(yes, really, I think this is a real advantage, after a long game working out who scored what shouldn't involve too much calculation.)
- focuses the game on really finishing off the opponent. Merely breaking an army is not enough you must run them down!
- no more issue of a big unit being broken on the last turn and therefore destroyed even though you would almost certainly have rallied if you'd played another turn

Disadvantages:
- A unit can be cut down to just one model remaining, fleeing and unable to rally except in snake eyes yet gives up not a single point.
- damage dealt is not awarded points proportional to damage done unless destroyed allowing points denial armies to flourish.

[D'rthock the Insatiable]

I liked the old rules on a game by game basis; but in tournaments, I agree there is a huge advantage in being able to quickly and easily add up points.  I just think there's got to be a better way to go about it while still being fast.

Example of the top of my head: for every hundred points in the unit, assign 1 point (0-100 = 1 pt, 101-200 = 2pts, etc).  If your army is reduced to half strength than half points (rounding down) are awarded to the opponent.  This would be quick and easy as every list could quickly and easily reduce their units down to single digit point levels prior to the tournament games.  At the end of the game, it will be easy to figure out how many points the enemy is awarded.  (Note: I'm not saying this is the best idea in the world, but it would account for the fast math advantage of the 8th edition rules while maintaining some of the accuracy of the 7th edition).

[Tanksie]

This makes complete sense btw, because GW is making us buy loads of models to fill those unbreakable hordes. Makes sense really: Make hordes more effective and a crucial part of the VP system in order to win = sell more models. Which in turn means more glue, and paint, and supplies. This is an obvious selling strategy, but I overlook it sometimes. Good show GW...

Except the common soldiery has gone up in points, and thus your point becomes flawed.

The common soldiery has also gone up in cost, here in aus boxes were $50 for 20 now they are $41 for 10. This covers swordsmen, orcs(actually $48) , skeletons, gor, ungor, corsairs, (stormvermin are $83 for 20!)

[Shadowlord]

I am quite aware of that but if money was the only factor all Empire soldiers would cost a point less in the release, not one point more.

[Tanksie]

But by nearly doubling the price I think they did all they could on the money front. If they dropped points as well many people would be very angry.

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

But by nearly doubling the price I think they did all they could on the money front. If they dropped points as well many people would be very angry.

LOL! Strangely enough there's a bunch of empire players that seem to be angry that they went up in price! indeed, I didn't see many ogre players complaining that their troops went down in points even though it was a base attempt for GW to make us buy more... 

[Mr. Cthulhu]

LOL! Strangely enough there's a bunch of empire players that seem to be angry that they went up in price! indeed, I didn't see many ogre players complaining that their troops went down in points even though it was a base attempt for GW to make us buy more... 

Yeah, that's true, but ogres NEEDED a drop in price. we were too busy being happy about being able to HAVE more units! Hahaha

[spriten]

I liked it when you had a minor victory, massacre etc.

I'm really glad they removed table quartes though

[Shadowlord]

But by nearly doubling the price I think they did all they could on the money front. If they dropped points as well many people would be very angry.

5000+ members at WE.com will disagree with that statement.

[Nicholas Bies]

But by nearly doubling the price I think they did all they could on the money front. If they dropped points as well many people would be very angry.

5000+ members at WE.com will disagree with that statement.

hahahan QFT very true

[Mr. Cthulhu]

I liked it when you had a minor victory, massacre etc.

I'm really glad they removed table quartes though

This. Perfectly worded and accurate.

[Gutlord Inquisitor]

Most tournaments retain the minor/major/massacre distinctions in some format. In some ways it's good that there isn't a rulebook version because tournies would be expected to adhere to the rulebook boundaries, which would likely have been rather silly.

I really think one sensible change would be to say that any unit fleeing at the end of the game that is below 25% (I.e. below the minimum number allowed to rally except on snake eyes) should count as destroyed. Really annoying when a couple of stragglers escape being run down and would likely never rally anyway.