What is the cost of a unit?

[Mr Mystery]

Afternoon!

Afraid I'm going a bit complex on you on this one, but please do bear with me, as hopefully I'll be able to express myself in a clear, coherent manner.

So, question in the title, and it seems straight forward enough. The cost of a unit is it's totalled points value, as laid out in it's Codex entry yes?

Well. Kind of. Ish. I'm thinking it's true cost lies also in where it is located in your Codex organisation.

For instance, many people consider the Helldrake to be undercosted for what you get. Now here, I'll admit my ignorance in that it's been a while since I read my CSM Codex, and I cannot for the life of me tell you it's cost right here, right now (though I totally can once I get home). And yes, it is pretty pokey thanks to it's flameyburnydoomgun. However, nobody can simply take a Heldrake, because it's neither Troops, nor HQ. Therefore, the minimum cost out of your allowance to field one is it's own points, plus that of your compulsories (which will of course fluctuate depending on the mission and FoC from time to time).

Now in any given army, this is of course going to fluctuate. If you wanted to field three Heldrakes (purely to continue the analogy...not ragging on the unit) then of course, they share the 'base cost' of your compulsories. This of course makes them better and better value, especially when you apply the theory of 'tank squaring' (well, cubing if you fielded three I suppose) into the mix.

But what of allies? I think this is where considering the holistic cost of the unit really comes into it's own. You can only field one fancy toy per allied detachment. And each one therefore has it's own pre-requisites. To continue the ongoing example, and as a nod to the thread that inspired this train of thought, let's look at my Necrons wanting an allied Heldrake. I can't just take the Heldrake. I need and HQ and a Troops to get it on the board. Cheapest HQ and cheapest troops (oh, hello Cultists). Granted, examples wise it's not a massive pre-requisite cost, but it serves to explain what I'm banging on about.

Is this something we should be considering when 'rating' any given unit? Or is it just too ephermeral to consider further?

[Wolfshade]

I think Mystery, that this will fall into the too hard to difficult pile.

Certainly those things should be considerations, but rarely will they make it into the calculation, are they undercosted? Well if they are, is that because we are neglecting the 150+pts dropped on an "in-efficient" HQ and 2 compulsory troops?

Other things to consider are how unit X works within the context of the army as an whole.
For instance a 100pt chaplain on its own is a little inefficient (arguably), but put him leading an assault squad, and you instantly get a synergy "bonus" you then put that chaplain leading a death company then that is a huge boon, but how do you then account for those options points-wise? Do you put the extra points on the model or on the units it is attached with, or change the price as per the army composition? I think the later would be far too difficult and possiblily too perscriptive to people.

If we were to consider a squad of terminators, 40pts each (+5 for TH/SS), but we are restricted to a maximum of 30 (3 squads of 10). If we were then able to take these as troops would we need different point as then you could take twice the amount?

I suppose the best analogy is the cost of Belial, is he worth, on his own, his points? If he is overcosted then we can see that the "loading" of these other options lies with the HQ that can unlock them. So, the more you "spam" the unlocked option the better points efficiency you get with your HQ, i.e. the "extra" cost of the HQ is then spread across the different units, as suggested in the above post.

[Caitsidhe]

For instance, many people consider the Helldrake to be undercosted for what you get. Now here, I'll admit my ignorance in that it's been a while since I read my CSM Codex, and I cannot for the life of me tell you it's cost right here, right now (though I totally can once I get home).

170 w/Baleflamer.


And yes, it is pretty pokey thanks to it's flameyburnydoomgun. However, nobody can simply take a Heldrake, because it's neither Troops, nor HQ. Therefore, the minimum cost out of your allowance to field one is it's own points, plus that of your compulsories (which will of course fluctuate depending on the mission and FoC from time to time).

All very true. As an allied attachment you are only going to get one short of MASSIVE points allowed in the game.


Now in any given army, this is of course going to fluctuate. If you wanted to field three Heldrakes (purely to continue the analogy...not ragging on the unit) then of course, they share the 'base cost' of your compulsories. This of course makes them better and better value, especially when you apply the theory of 'tank squaring' (well, cubing if you fielded three I suppose) into the mix.

I run two, but largely to make sure one gets in past standard AA.


But what of allies? I think this is where considering the holistic cost of the unit really comes into it's own. You can only field one fancy toy per allied detachment. And each one therefore has it's own pre-requisites. To continue the ongoing example, and as a nod to the thread that inspired this train of thought, let's look at my Necrons wanting an allied Heldrake. I can't just take the Heldrake. I need and HQ and a Troops to get it on the board. Cheapest HQ and cheapest troops (oh, hello Cultists). Granted, examples wise it's not a massive pre-requisite cost, but it serves to explain what I'm banging on about.

Yes in that light they are paying around 300pts or so for their Helldrake.


Is this something we should be considering when 'rating' any given unit? Or is it just too ephermeral to consider further?

Not really. Games Workshop doesn't balance their game. They don't really test their game either. Nothing is in context. I'm not being snide, just honest. There is no way for us to measure anythign except in the ephemeral, i.e. how we find it performs. The Helldrake is a mean unit but in the scheme of things it can be dealt with. I wish there was a 'rating' that works, but there isn't due to the nature of how the Game is setup.

[jgebi]

well I think I see where you are going with this, and i agree your logic is sound and everyone wants the best value and if your in a tournament and someone dose this well get over it but if it's mates playing you just change the rules to make it more loreful and less a *****. But to give something like a flyer a rating is well impossible as it is so situation based for example your taking 3 helldrakes and someone has a good AA army well then you've wasted points same with everything.
I think so really it's more like rock, paper, scissors it just comes down to how you counter no magic op units just logic. not sure if stayed with your logic but any way

[Tyrendian]

another "weird" aspect to points costs of a given unit, at least it feels like that to me, is the competition it has in its FOC slot - or "what we have to give up" to put it in our list.
An example to me would be Necron Destroyers - in and of themselves a perfectly fine unit, not that easy to kill, good firepower and mobility and not horribly expensive. But. At least to my liking (some, if not all of you will probably disagree with this - i'll just use my personal taste as an example), the other choices 'crons have in Fast Attack are just better. Wraiths for killyness, Scarabs for annoyance and hilariously killing vehicles and Tomb Blades for filling a similar role - mobile firepower - slightly better. So, to take a unit of Destroyers, I would have to skip one of those three (assuming I was using all three of my FA slots of course, which I find myself doing often enough...).
Anyone understand what I just went on about? ;-)

[Dlatrex]

Right: Point cost is just a another restriction for how many of something you can fit into a given army list. You could think of FOC assignment as another such 'cost' of a given unit. This is really only an issue when you are completely filling up FOC selections though.

[Renegade]

another "weird" aspect to points costs of a given unit, at least it feels like that to me, is the competition it has in its FOC slot - or "what we have to give up" to put it in our list.
An example to me would be Necron Destroyers - in and of themselves a perfectly fine unit, not that easy to kill, good firepower and mobility and not horribly expensive. But. At least to my liking (some, if not all of you will probably disagree with this - i'll just use my personal taste as an example), the other choices 'crons have in Fast Attack are just better. Wraiths for killyness, Scarabs for annoyance and hilariously killing vehicles and Tomb Blades for filling a similar role - mobile firepower - slightly better. So, to take a unit of Destroyers, I would have to skip one of those three (assuming I was using all three of my FA slots of course, which I find myself doing often enough...).
Anyone understand what I just went on about? ;-)

IG have the same issue with every slot but Elites.

[Wildcard]

This is really well brought up with the Grey Knight codex. Most of us have heard the term "Crow Tax", and it is the added point cost and lost HQ slot to get 6 scoring purifier units to the table (for example).

Also, with the GK lists the theoretical battle in heavy support slots between 3x dreadknights and 3x landraiders to go with terminators. Take the dreadknights and your terminators will never have any transport to take shelter and launch assaults from. And if you take them as footsloggers you will most likely get them killed before they do anything usefull, unless you deepstrike them.

So in that regard dreadknights are costing me alot more than their (my) usual loadout of 260ish points.