And you, how do you rate your unit's Return on Investment (Game wise)?

[Bouargh]

Hi there!,

 

While chating last week-end with an AdMech player, I was listening to him mourning about the fact that the Knight Errant he is fielding (most of the time) is rarely (almost never) giving him a satisfying Return on Investment (RoI). I asked him why he thought like that, knowing that his win/loss ratio is in general more than honorable (75% win ratio all enemies considered in is league – which I do not really know what may mean without more details on the league composition…)... Of course the chat naturally went on the derivative of how RoI is defined.

 

In a game as complex as 40k, interacting units lead to difficulties into defining a base case RoI for each one on a stand alone basis.  After a small time, he agreed on the fact that MIGHT be that if he was winning games with the other units of his army although the Knight was reduced to rumbles most of the cases, the fact MIGHT BE that loosing his knight was in fact an ENABLING FACTOR for his victories. Indeed his definition of RoI was simply number of enemy points killed/point value of the Knight. A little bit short sighted for me. (every thing busy to kill the knight is not bearing its attention on the rest of the army...)

 

But then it leads to much interesting discusions such as parametrization of other contributing factors that may help refining a RoI approach - for example:

-       Probability for the unit to stay alive at the end of the game

-       Number of objectives seized and retained

-       Sum of point values of enemy units mobilized for destroying the asset/ point value of the unit

 

But defining metrics for these contributing factors is rather uneasy, and the basic number of enemy points killed/point value of the Knight came back as the most accessible lagging KPI.

 

As I am playing mainly for fun (i.e. something like 6 games per year and with a win ratio under 33%) what is motivating me is the good time with friends and the things around the game (i.e. the  aftergame diner) rather than my units competitiveness. So I am not that into all the list and unit selection optimization stuff.

 

Under that typical type of situation, how do you rate your units RoI? (if you are rating / seeing any necessity for rating anything of course). Do you have some of your own leading indicators to drive your selection and balance or do you rely on your experiences acquired (or feeling of the moment)?

Edited May 29, 2023 by Bouargh

[Cleon]

For me a unit can contribute in two ways - achieving things itself (kills or scoring), or soaking fire so that another unit can  achieve things (even if it dies in the process). The only units that disappoint me are the ones that outright fail - i.e. I get them in a position to do something I feel they should be able to do and they don't do it.

[MARK0SIAN]

If a unit’s primary job is killing stuff then I consider it a fair return on investment if it can survive long enough to kill its equivalent value of points. That may be relatively short if it’s a fast glass hammer that will earn its points back quickly in turn 1 or 2 but then get immediately destroyed, or it might be longer if it can survive 4 or 5 turns gradually earning its points back over the course of those turns.

 

If it doesn’t survive long enough (or has such poor offensive output that it can’t kill enough) then I would consider it a poor ROI and inversely, if it kills more than its value I would consider it a good ROI.

 

For units whose job is more about support or objective play then it’s harder to decide whether it’s a good ROI or not and so I tend to just go on gut feeling. 
 

It’s also worth noting that I wouldn’t make any of the judgements unless I had played a few times with the units as a lot of the value of units will vary a lot based on the game type and opponent.

[ThePenitentOne]

For me RoI is how much fun the unit is to play- do it's rules allow it to do interesting things on the table.

 

With the advent of Crusade, I gained a dimension of RoI that was never there before. For example, BSS, Repentia, Celestians have this fun little story arc where a BSS makes a battlefield error in game and it costs us an objective, I have the rules and Requisitions to have that unit swear a Penitent Oath, becoming the Repentia unit, who are then able to redeem themselves in game to become the Celestians.

 

This is the kind of thing that I am afraid will dissappear in 10th, despite Crusade itself surviving.

 

RoI for me also involves using the model in multiple games. Models that fit in KT, 40k and BSF are more worthwhile than models that can only be used in one game, though I understand that this thread is about RoI with points rather than RoI with dollars. That being said, the level breaks in KT and Crusade are the same, so running gestalt units (ie. a unit has both a KT and a Crusade card, but all xp is pooled, so every level you pick both a KT and a Crusade BH).

 

I also liked units that completed detachments within a roster. It was always fascinating to me how a Brigade could have a Patrol, an Outrider and a Vanguard inside it, and this could influence the look of the models and their behaviour on the table. A great example is your Crusade Brigade of Sisters sending it's Outrider team to join an Army of Faith on Vigilus, joining Guard and Marines.

 

The rest of the roster is still fighting in its usual theatre of war, but the Outriders are picking up Battle Honours related to their fight on Vigilus, which influence the trophies on their bases, the Crusade Relics that get modeled etc. So when they return to the Commandery, they look and behave differently. So sometimes when buying a unit, I'm influenced by whether or not it could complete a detachment within the roster in order to move my story forward.

 

For me, the raw power/ efficiency of a unit is almost never the priority for determining factor for RoI.

[Sky Potato]

Can people not set their default text to white and just leave it on default please?

 

The OP is just showing a big blank empty box for those of us who use the mobile scheme.

[MARK0SIAN]

4 minutes ago, Sky Potato said:

Can people not set their default text to white and just leave it on default please?

 

The OP is just showing a big blank empty box for those of us who use the mobile scheme.

I’m on mobile and it’s appearing white for me and was when I read it earlier. Is it possible different mobiles format it differently? Might be worth submitting a big report as it sounds like an odd situation.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

best ROI in my guard army probably my baneblade variants. a lot tends to get focused on them leaving the rest of my army to whittle the enemy army down a bit, meanwhile they themselves are putting out a lot of fire power.

for my marines, my SR, venerable dread, and aggressors i'd say give me my best ROI. with thunderstrike speeder and HIs often doing pretty well as well. i often have terrible luck with charge rolls so the units that most people have good ROI with, typically let me down.

[Cactus]

12 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

I’m on mobile and it’s appearing white for me and was when I read it earlier. Is it possible different mobiles format it differently? Might be worth submitting a big report as it sounds like an odd situation.

The issue is that the theme named 'default' has a white background, unlike the B&C theme's black background.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Cleon said:

For me a unit can contribute in two ways - achieving things itself (kills or scoring), or soaking fire so that another unit can  achieve things (even if it dies in the process). The only units that disappoint me are the ones that outright fail - i.e. I get them in a position to do something I feel they should be able to do and they don't do it.

this is my sanguinary guard.
if it's not a 5" charge or less i typically end up failing the charge, and poof they're gone by the next turn.

[Bouargh]

53 minutes ago, Sky Potato said:

Can people not set their default text to white and just leave it on default please?

 

The OP is just showing a big blank empty box for those of us who use the mobile scheme.

 

And now, can you see it?

 

PS: Nxt time, think PM... Would be more efficient

[Sky Potato]

Certainly can see it now, thanks brother.

[Xenith]

"Making it's points back" was definitely one of the ways of assessing a unit pre-9th, where the game was dominantly about killing stuff then maybe grabbing objectives at the end. In terms of ROI, I think you have to assess it on a unit basis, as to what you intend that unit to do.

 

In your friends case, would he say that the 10 man squad that sat at the back in cover, but on an objective netting 5VP per turn were a bad investment as they didn't kill anything?

 

If I take a unit to do a job, and it does that job, then I consider them points well spent. In my Eldar, I took 5 man ranger units to perform the scout the enemy action for 4vp per turn for 65pts. That was a good trade for me - they just came on, did the action, got me 4vp, then anything after was a bonus. 

 

With your friend, I think you've hit the nail on the head that the knight is probably helping the army in other ways than direct killing - taking fire from other things in the army. Thisis the traditional "distraction carnifex" who was (in 3rd) a tough monster that was hard to bring down, yet who was dangerous up close, whose sole job was to be thrown at the enemy asap to make it target priority #1 If it hit their lines, then it would ruin their game plan. If they killed it, it took a lot of firepower and meant your hive tyrants probably survived, and kept your opponent in their DZ turn one.

[Orange Knight]

I have never once considered a return on investment for my models from only the gaming perspective, and I don't agree with the premise of this topic on a most fundamental level. Fun is mentioned in the initial post, so we aren't simply discussing the point investment or competitive nature of a model in a list.

 

A return of investment (financial/time?) based solely on table-top performance is the worst way to judge the value of model, and I don't see how I could ever think this way, personally. The hobby encompasses several different categories - collecting, painting, playing, socialising and lore. Not everyone engages in all of them at all time, but typically hobbyists find enjoyment in 3-5 of the categories at any given time.

 

If I reduced my purchases to the mathematical performance of units on the tabletop alone, I could save myself a lot of hassle and money by playing a simulation of the tabletop on a computer.

 

The whole of the hobby is greater than the sum of it's parts - It's why we are willing to pay so much for pieces of grey plastic. The lore attached to the models, their place in our collection, the fun in building and painting them, the joy in seeing them on the tabletop, the excitement of talking about them to like-minded people. Even players who are focused on competitive gaming ahead of all other aspects will still have a favourite faction or model that they add to their collection, even if it doesn't see much play.

[Xenith]

^I think you missed the point that it's game wise, not actual financial ROI.

 

Basically, is the Knight worth the 400pts I spend on it? How do you decide this - simply through killing 400pts worth of stuff, or other intangible means? 

 

No one's talking about actual money. 

[Orange Knight]

Just now, Xenith said:

^I think you missed the point that it's game wise, not actual financial ROI.

 

Basically, is the Knight worth the 400pts I spend on it? How do you decide this - simply through killing 400pts worth of stuff, or other intangible means? 

 

No one's talking about actual money. 

 

The initial topic talks about fun.

 

Fun can be generated by simply looking at your favourite model on the table top, even if it doesn't contribute much towards winning the game. The level of fun we get from a model is tied to more than just their performance on the tabletop.

 

We can discuss something like a model's return on points invested, and that itself isn't a difficult thing to put a value on, in a competitive sense. That value can be broken down by several factors - their offence, durability, mobility, scoring and cost. 

[Xenith]

4 minutes ago, Orange Knight said:

We can discuss something like a model's return on points invested, and that itself isn't a difficult thing to put a value on, in a competitive sense. That value can be broken down by several factors - their offence, durability, mobility, scoring and cost. 

 

That sounds exactly what they're looking for - good to see it's not difficult also, we've struggled so far - what's your rubric for a models ROI?

[Orange Knight]

The categories are easy enough to identify, but a large part of it will come down to experience on the tabletop in addition to this. I would say that as a rule of thumb a good unit will be able to perform 3 of the 5 categories well.

 

Of course the points are a big one. You could have a toughness 1 model, with no weapons and a movement speed of 3", but if you could flood the board with hundreds of them they would still be a good investment, potentially.

 

The difficult thing to consider on top of this is how a unit may or may not perform anecdotally. A unit that doesn't stand up on it's own can still find a useful niche in a particular list. Looking at the original post, the Knight Errant that is mentioned appears to be performing, despite the opinion of the player using it.

A model that costs around 1/4th of the total points in an army cannot be dragging that army down in any significant way if the win rate is maintained at 75%. It might be functioning as a "Distraction Carnifex" and little more, but that could be the niche it has found in that specific list.