Champions and unit size counting

[IBBoard]

I was just thinking about Champions and wondering how we need to handle them. At the moment it is simplified by the fact that they're either "equipment" options or entirely separate characters. What I'm not sure about is how they should be represented, as I was never entirely sure how other people handled it when I played WH and 40K.

If a unit has a unit size of 20 and a champion, then is that a 20 or 21 model unit? Can we say it is one or the other, or do we have to allow for both depending on the game system? WH 7th and 40K 3rd seemed to be "champion is an upgrade, so 20 models", where as WH 5th had Champions in the Characters category so it would be "champion is a separate model, so 21 models".

If we need both options then the question is how to handle the distinction, especially when size is important and the character needs to be manually modified (e.g. WH 5th champions were generally identical to their troops, but 40K sergeants can often get their own upgrades).

In case that rambling didn't make sense, I need a bit more front-line insight into what we need to be able to do

[snowblizz]

Tricky. Or not. Dunno.

Best as I can say... we might need open options?

Champions are as of now in both WHFB and 40k part of the unit. An example where players have had trouble:

Centigors area 5+ unit. Say 25p each so costs 125 to buy. They have normal command upgrades so say we buy a champ the unit is 4+champ at 135p. You can also buy a special character champ (instead of the normal one) for say 180 points. The question was eventually resolved by FAQ to what I always knew, the unit is then 305p and 4+special character for a total of 5 models (the character in reality costing 180+25p as he replaces a model you must first purchase).
There are several of these characters and all have been FAQed to say "yes, they cost basic trooper + character upgrade price".

Most times champions are armed identically to the troopers and only have a slightly improved stat line. In WHFB a few CAN take different options, most often special or magic items. They will usually be included into the "all models can buy X for y points" even if they then upgrade to a magic weapon.
So far all the mundane options are set on the unit and I've included the champ as a separate unit only at the cost of his upgrade and if he has further options they are under him.

In 40k most champions have access to a "wargear list" even it is not called so anymore. To make it very complicated, sometimes they share the "common trooper items". E.g. Space Marine Scouts, where "each member can buy a Sniper Rifle" which includes the Sergeant, when also any "scout can upgrade X" but that excludes the sergeant. I've solved this so far by capping the options at the squad size and having the sergeant buy it separately.

Essentially all champs are right now <contained units> (not that it means anything yet) to allow for stats and equipment, but should be counted for unit sizes. Of course a Space Marine unit will also have a Rhino and other transport options that should not be counted for unit size.

Another thing is how to count points. That same-some Space Marine unit the unit and champ is worth their price in VPs but the transport option is counted separately.

[IBBoard]

That example looks like a mixed case - the "standard" champion could be an option with a stat line, since he just gets an improved stat line, but the "special" champion complicates things by being a separate entity *and* counting towards the minimum size. Perhaps we're going to need two types of containership - one that is "contained" as in "part of the unit" and another as in "a sub-unit in an organisational sense, e.g. a detachment".

I think the equipment is going to confuse matters greatly. There were always some issues around the "all members" that I wasn't sure of and never really checked out when I played. It makes sense that they're all armed the same, but I can imagine it gets complex and uncertain with units like Goblins if they have the "cost less than 5pts and get half-price equipment" rules that Warhammer had, since they'd get half-price equipment but their champions wouldn't, but they'd all have to have the same equipment.

This definitely needs a lot of planning going in to it to make sure we do it properly - and some checking of the handling of certain other systems so that we can handle the conversion between the two systems. Maybe we just need to always treat the champion 'separately', even if he is just a points-cost upgrade, as it is easier to have unnecessary detail on some instances than it is to distinguish between the two and handle the edge cases.

[snowblizz]

Maybe we just need to always treat the champion 'separately', even if he is just a points-cost upgrade, as it is easier to have unnecessary detail on some instances than it is to distinguish between the two and handle the edge cases.

Yes, this is what I expected, I do make the champs separate units as it is.

I'm travelling to a conference in Peru right now so won't be able to do much thinking for a while.

[IBBoard]

Peru? Now there's a long distance conference! If you have an inspiration in the mean time then please write them down and post them later I'll get on to thinking about this once I've investigated the competitors.

[snowblizz]

Peru? Now there's a long distance conference!

Yup. Last year this time it was in San Francisco which I also attended. It seems to be my "curse". This conference has a track that fits my research perfectly, but darn is it a long way to travel. I'd really need to find something closer to home, but I haven't really found anything that fits yet.

[IBBoard]

I've just checked out "that other app" and it does look like they always nest. Makes sense, I guess, but we'll need to make sure that we handle things like "always has the same equipment" nicely. The bit that might need slightly better UI is the unit size - they show a top level "5" with a "4" and a Champion, where as we still need to work out the best way, since we don't differentiate at the moment.

The question there is whether the unit or the champion forces identical equipment - it isn't a major difference, but if we can say "Elven Champion" forces matching equipment then it is in one place, where as "bow men, spearmen and mixed units can take Elven Champion and force the same equipment" repeats it (unnecessarily, if Elven Champion is only ever part of those units).

[Y3oL]

I've another case to consider with regards to mixed equipment.
(maybe this belongs in a different thread...)

The Maneater unit in the Ogre Kingdoms army doesn't have Champions, but each unit member is allowed to equip different weapons from each other (ogre club/cathayan longsword/great weapon/brace of handguns).
The ogre club would be the default weapon, being replaced by the other weapons, but the exclusivity group tag doesn't allow for partial replacement (i.e. of 4 ogre clubs, 1 is replaced by a great weapon, 1 replaced by handguns)

also, it's possible to replace all ogre clubs with other weapons, but if i put an absolute min limit of 0, it no longer shows up as the default weapon when creating the unit.

below is my data file code, in case i'm missing something obvious

Code: Select all

<unitEquipmentItem id="OK_Ogre Club" required="true"  >
            <minLimit> <core:absoluteLimit limit="0" /> </minLimit>
            <maxLimit> <core:unitSizeLimit /> </maxLimit>
        </unitEquipmentItem>
        <unitEquipmentItem id="OK_Cathayan Longsword"  costMultiplier="0.6">
             <minLimit> <core:absoluteLimit limit="1" /> </minLimit>
             <maxLimit>  <core:unitSizeLimit />  </maxLimit>
        </unitEquipmentItem>
        <unitEquipmentItem id="GreatWeapons"  costMultiplier="0.6">
             <minLimit> <core:absoluteLimit limit="1" /> </minLimit>
           <maxLimit> <core:unitSizeLimit /> </maxLimit>
        </unitEquipmentItem>
        <unitEquipmentItem id="OK_Brace of Handguns"  costMultiplier="0.6">
          <minLimit> <core:absoluteLimit limit="1" /> </minLimit>
           <maxLimit> <core:unitSizeLimit /> </maxLimit>
        </unitEquipmentItem>


thanks

y3ol
(a.k.a. mollo in TRAC/Yahoo)

[snowblizz]

You're not missing anything, it is something we just don't handle yet. I'm been brining up similar issues since about day 3 when I got to the first complicated Ork unit. Check old threads

the required = 0 zero so not added is also something I've mentioned. One of the reasons I asked for a "default" tag.

What I have done for such units is simply allowing the options being "1/0 - unitSize" and putting it all into an equipmentSlot. It will let the user create illegal combinations, but hey this isn't a replacement for your ruelbook anyway. Yet

Something even more tricky are the units where every member can take 2 weapons from a list of options.

[IBBoard]

I'm sure we can manage a "defaultAmount" attribute in v0.2, defaulting back to the minAmount if it isn't set (for backward compatibility). It probably is different to the Champion situation, though.

[snowblizz]

It probably is different to the Champion situation, though.

Yeah it kinda is.