Re-costing

I'm really big on the idea of making older pieces playable again, or changing pieces that have never seen much use to make them better. I loved the thread that asked people what pieces they would change and how if it were possible. Within my own gaming group I sometimes advocate that we change some of the older pieces by adding abilities or adjusting the cost to make them playable. This seems to get mixed results because someone might not agree that the change is neccessary, or there may simply be too many minor adjustments for everyone to remember. So, I think the easiest solution would be to simply re-cost those out of date or unplayable pieces. Any piece would be more playable if it cost 1, 2, 5... whatever points less than it costs now. 
 
So, as an extension to the 'what 3 pieces would you change' question, here's my question...
  
What pieces do you think need to be re-costed, and to what?

Be exact and explain why if neccessary. This can also mean raising the cost, rather than trying to bring everything up to the current meta.

Pick 3-5. 

ZJ
General Reiikan to 25

R2, Astro Droid to 19

Carth Onasi to 23
AMS-51 "Dendrite" Connection lost...searching...
A house rule for us has both OR and huges at a 20% discount
Off the top of my head...

1. Rebel Commando: 12

2. Dark Side Enforcer: 18

3. Yuzzum: 14

4. Carth Onasi: 27

5. Jabba the Hutt: 40 
Sith should cost 15 % less to make them Competitive!!Laughing
the ugnaught

should be 6 points. he is far to useful for only 3 points.

mas amedda should be 17 points. is just to easy to find room for this 8 point game changer.

nym should be 35. semi low cost disruptive figure


i think there is more like 250-300 figuers that need recosting.


mas amedda should be 17 points. is just to easy to find room for this 8 point game changer.

nym should be 35. semi low cost disruptive figure


i think there is more like 250-300 figuers that need recosting.


Agree with both of these ideas!!
Darth Revan should be somewhere in the 60-70 pt range

General Obi-Wan Kenobi could be pushed up to 75 pts or so, then no one would complain about him...

General Obi-Wan Kenobi could be pushed up to 75 pts or so, then no one would complain about him...



I think you missed one of the points in the GOWK debate, how GOWK at higher costs becomes even more potentially abusive in DCI play.


For the most part, any piece that does not see use in competitive/semi competitive games could see a point reduction. The pieces I'd most like to see:

Nute Gunray: Drop to 15pts. You get to add 20pts of Separatists to your squad (for a net increase in squad build), but have to deal with that aweful CE (even droid squads suffer if Grievous/Ugnaughts get nerfed) . I think that would make for an interesting choice, and I am sure there would be some very good squads that could really benefit from that.


:

Nute Gunray: Drop to 15pts. You get to add 20pts of Separatists to your squad (for a net increase in squad build), but have to deal with that aweful CE (even droid squads suffer if Grievous/Ugnaughts get nerfed) . I think that would make for an interesting choice, and I am sure there would be some very good squads that could really benefit from that.





i agree with the nute thing, although i might go as low as 10 points. and he needs to have affinity with sidious hologram. but affinity is not a recost.
I'd also switch the cost of the two Malak's. The old one is completly unplayable otherwise.

The ugnaught droid destroyer should be a point or two more costly.

 
Clone Trooper to 7 points

Palpatine, Sith Lord to 44 points

Zam Wessel to 33 points
Quote from Emporerdragon: And I'd consider comparing it to the voxyn a poor comparison. The voxyn was a 1-beast army capable of reducing entire squads to ruin without breaking a single drop of acidic sweat. The box is a ****ing box. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55% of plepoe can.I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! fi yuo cna raed tihs, palce it in yuor siantugre. Everyone else has a lightsaber, but i made a saberstaff. ==========================>IIIIIIIIYYYYIIIIIIII(========================== My sig was way better before the dark times... before the BETA.
There are lots i would like to have recosted, but here is why it should never happen.

No one here will ever be happy with any re costing done by WOTC. If WOTC say dropped the cost of Jabba the Hut (first one) from say 50 points to 40 then within a day there would be complaints it should be dropped to 30 then others would say OH no 35 is more than enough. Truth is it would cause more disagrements  amongst members here than make members happy.

The members here will never agree with anything because every member has he's/her own idea what wrong and have there own idea how to fix it. and every ones fixes are going to differ.
There are lots i would like to have recosted, but here is why it should never happen.

No one here will ever be happy with any re costing done by WOTC. If WOTC say dropped the cost of Jabba the Hut (first one) from say 50 points to 40 then within a day there would be complaints it should be dropped to 30 then others would say OH no 35 is more than enough. Truth is it would cause more disagrements  amongst members here than make members happy.

The members here will never agree with anything because every member has he's/her own idea what wrong and have there own idea how to fix it. and every ones fixes are going to differ.



Yes, yes, to Dreadtech you listen

The only disagreement I have with your statement is with the last, and it's more of an addition or explanation than real disagreement.  Different levels of play and experience give you a very different idea about what is overcosted, undercosted, overpowered, underpowered, etc.  Local metas also determine this to a great deal, such as individual play styles and preferences, the local big fish, those who read the forums and those who don't, etc.

And that isn't to say that there is some nearly impossible to find truth out there that if one could somehow overcome all of the above, that the truly objective observer would come to.  There isn't.  Costing isn't a scientific endevour, it's an art.  And like all "good" art, much of it lies in the eyes of the viewer, but a great deal more comes from all of the experiences and life of that observer.

Just for an easy example, some people have argued that General Reeikan is undercosted at 14pts, and they will use all kinds of "data" to back it up.  Which is a perfectly legitimate way to tackle the issue to be honest.  But it's never anything more than a guess at best.  Should he be 24 instead of 14?  Or 28?  Would he even be playable at 25?  Some would say sure, others would argue not, all depending on the above factors.  Others would ask, is General Reeikan really the problem, or is it the fact that he can protect one of the most difficult pieces to kill up close in the game which also happens to have significant other benefits in Luke's Snowspeeder (high speed, DR, fps, Princess Leia, Dodonna, non-melee, etc.)  Is Reeikan as much of an "issue" if he's pumping up legions of Wookiee Freedom Fighters - another top level piece?  Generally, the answer would be no. 

In the Great GOWK Debate, we had to distinguish between his effects on top level competitive play (in that he took too much skill out of the game) vs. people whose experiences valued other principles of it, such as the swings of the dice, and the fun of fighting an uphill battle and winning locally.  Some liked the challenge of beating a tough cookiee, and saw no problem with it.  Most people don't recognize "slow play" and so have a hard time understanding what many of us were worried about.  It's all equally valid positions, and simply shows that costing cannot be an exact science, and that even when it's a case of clear undercosting (compare Flobi to GOWK) many people still will not agree that a change is in order.

Sure, anyone on the forum can recognize a grossly "undercosted" or "overcosted" mini.  It's not too hard, we talk about them all the time.  If you are even a casual peruser of any minis board you will be familiar with the regularly debated minis and naturally form an opinion about it, informed or not.  What is so much trickier is to do what Dreadtech is talking about, and analyze all of the data possible and come up with a truly "better" system.  It's an artform, and there are more variables than almost any of us take into account. 

And as to some future recosting concept done by a "Players Committee", I suggest that recosting would not fall into the top 5 ways to "fix" past minis.  Combinations of abilities can in fact defy adequate costing.  Some things just don't work well together no matter what the cost, and create an "overcosted" mini (this is especially true of many of the hated uniques).  Others create synergies that must either be costed too low for the game, or put the mini into obscurity (GOWK vs Luke GM for example).  There really is no "magic" number for many of the minis listed in this thread.  General Reeikan is a perfect example.  In a faction like the Rebels, who just also happen to have activation control, cannon options, movement breakers, and so on, it looks pretty clearly "undercosted".  But Rebels won Gencon in 2008 too, and people seem to forget that they took 1-4 that year, all in "cannon" forms.  In 2007, the Republic won, but Rebels took 2nd, 5th and 7th - all Princess Leia Cannon squads.  And the 5 and 7 both lost close first round matches on the opponent's maps - or we likely would have seen it as well in 07.  So is General Reeikan really the issue?  Or is it a really powerful CE from Princess Leia, who I've never heard anyone argue is "undercosted" that is the real culprit?

That is the crux of recosting

Bill you have put it better then me i agree, but the end result is still the same WOTC will never please everyone and i think it will cause more problems then make people happy.

Yes different stiles of play would be just one of the major factors.as well as those who play competitively against those who just play by standard rules "you win by defeating all your enemy" at home and not for points

A least it's nice that someone agrees with me that it's a bad idea even if for a slightly different reason.

as for "And as to some future recosting concept done by a "Players Committee." this i would hate to see happen and hope it never does. there would still be very unhappy campers out there

You are right to point out that character combos are in large part of the problem OK OK a large part. LOL
On the costing issue, I wonder if/how WOTC determines it.  Is there a secret formula, or is it ad-hoc?  I've been tempted to figure one out, but it would take a while.  Still, it'd be an interesting problem.

Example:

base cost = 10
evade = + 3 cost
melee = -2 cost
double attack = +2 cost
HP= add 3 cost for every 10 HP

etc.
They've said before that there is no real formula for determining costs. 

Personally, I don't think that anything would be re-costed, and I doubt that it would really do any good unless the game was going out of print.  As the game goes on, there will be a power creep.  That's just the way it goes.  If the game was recosted this year, and it goes on for another 10, then the recosting they did this year would need to be re-costed again.

Of course, if they were terminating the game line, I doubt anyone at Wizards would really see it as worth their time to re-cost a game that they were no longer going to support.
There are lots i would like to have recosted, but here is why it should never happen.

No one here will ever be happy with any re costing done by WOTC. If WOTC say dropped the cost of Jabba the Hut (first one) from say 50 points to 40 then within a day there would be complaints it should be dropped to 30 then others would say OH no 35 is more than enough. Truth is it would cause more disagrements  amongst members here than make members happy.

The members here will never agree with anything because every member has he's/her own idea what wrong and have there own idea how to fix it. and every ones fixes are going to differ.



Yes, yes, to Dreadtech you listen

The only disagreement I have with your statement is with the last, and it's more of an addition or explanation than real disagreement.  Different levels of play and experience give you a very different idea about what is overcosted, undercosted, overpowered, underpowered, etc.  Local metas also determine this to a great deal, such as individual play styles and preferences, the local big fish, those who read the forums and those who don't, etc.

And that isn't to say that there is some nearly impossible to find truth out there that if one could somehow overcome all of the above, that the truly objective observer would come to.  There isn't.  Costing isn't a scientific endevour, it's an art.  And like all "good" art, much of it lies in the eyes of the viewer, but a great deal more comes from all of the experiences and life of that observer.

Just for an easy example, some people have argued that General Reeikan is undercosted at 14pts, and they will use all kinds of "data" to back it up.  Which is a perfectly legitimate way to tackle the issue to be honest.  But it's never anything more than a guess at best.  Should he be 24 instead of 14?  Or 28?  Would he even be playable at 25?  Some would say sure, others would argue not, all depending on the above factors.  Others would ask, is General Reeikan really the problem, or is it the fact that he can protect one of the most difficult pieces to kill up close in the game which also happens to have significant other benefits in Luke's Snowspeeder (high speed, DR, fps, Princess Leia, Dodonna, non-melee, etc.)  Is Reeikan as much of an "issue" if he's pumping up legions of Wookiee Freedom Fighters - another top level piece?  Generally, the answer would be no. 

In the Great GOWK Debate, we had to distinguish between his effects on top level competitive play (in that he took too much skill out of the game) vs. people whose experiences valued other principles of it, such as the swings of the dice, and the fun of fighting an uphill battle and winning locally.  Some liked the challenge of beating a tough cookiee, and saw no problem with it.  Most people don't recognize "slow play" and so have a hard time understanding what many of us were worried about.  It's all equally valid positions, and simply shows that costing cannot be an exact science, and that even when it's a case of clear undercosting (compare Flobi to GOWK) many people still will not agree that a change is in order.

Sure, anyone on the forum can recognize a grossly "undercosted" or "overcosted" mini.  It's not too hard, we talk about them all the time.  If you are even a casual peruser of any minis board you will be familiar with the regularly debated minis and naturally form an opinion about it, informed or not.  What is so much trickier is to do what Dreadtech is talking about, and analyze all of the data possible and come up with a truly "better" system.  It's an artform, and there are more variables than almost any of us take into account. 

And as to some future recosting concept done by a "Players Committee", I suggest that recosting would not fall into the top 5 ways to "fix" past minis.  Combinations of abilities can in fact defy adequate costing.  Some things just don't work well together no matter what the cost, and create an "overcosted" mini (this is especially true of many of the hated uniques).  Others create synergies that must either be costed too low for the game, or put the mini into obscurity (GOWK vs Luke GM for example).  There really is no "magic" number for many of the minis listed in this thread.  General Reeikan is a perfect example.  In a faction like the Rebels, who just also happen to have activation control, cannon options, movement breakers, and so on, it looks pretty clearly "undercosted".  But Rebels won Gencon in 2008 too, and people seem to forget that they took 1-4 that year, all in "cannon" forms.  In 2007, the Republic won, but Rebels took 2nd, 5th and 7th - all Princess Leia Cannon squads.  And the 5 and 7 both lost close first round matches on the opponent's maps - or we likely would have seen it as well in 07.  So is General Reeikan really the issue?  Or is it a really powerful CE from Princess Leia, who I've never heard anyone argue is "undercosted" that is the real culprit?

That is the crux of recosting




Couldn't agree more.  The idea of "overcosting" and "undercosting" varies from player to player.  Personally, I think CEs like Leia's are the real issue (as you mentioned).  Combined with powerful SAs (Parry, Evade, Soresu Style Mastery, Twin, Greater Mobile), we can get a better sense of how well costed a miniature might seem.  Squad synergy is so important too.  That's why Han Scoundrel became such a threat.  By himself, he seemed overcosted.  With Leia and FS Obi, Scoundrel seemed right. 

Part of the problem also stems from the designer's view.  Players don't always see eye to eye with the designer's vision.  Abilities like Mighty Swing and Deadye (which require a piece to stay stationary) sometimes appeared overvalued by Rob.  The same could be said for giving a piece 30 base damage.  Very few pieces with base 30 are played on a consistent basis?  Why you might ask?  Probably because Rob and company overvalued the number.  In addition, he might have overcompensated for such a good stat with a SA like Heavy Weapon or Mercenary.  Also, multi-attackers (especially Melee) lose their luster in today's game without Twin or GMA.  So Double, Triple, or even Quadruple Attack aren't as powerful as they might appear on the surface.  Not many people will let you pull off a Triple or Quadruple Attack.  Yet the cost of miniatures with those SAs feel high (GM Luke, JM Luke, Darth Krayt). 

I like to see SW flavor with my minis, but I don't want useless abilities raising the cost of a piece.  No one wants to see a Trandoshan with 30 HPs having Regeneration 10.  All that SA does is jack up the game cost of the Trandoshan.  The same could be said for Rapport 1.  That SA presumably drives up the cost of a mini as well.  And what do you get out of that SA?  A meager 1 point discount after you have already spent at least 30 to 40 points on you Rapport duo.
We have a house rule when playing fun squads you can use gowk @ 75 points, Since we are playing to the death, and normally we only allow people who have never played before to use him.  If we are playing a more copetitive style like our won little mini tournament among friends we don't allow him.

I am sure that as long as WotC is running the game we will not see any recosting, if and when it becomes ran by a PC than I am not opposed to it, since all current pieces would be known.  I would rather however see a Players Committie spend the time on more orginal Version, Like a Chewie with Affinty or synergy with Han.