PDA

View Full Version : 7th edition...ruining the balance set down in 6th?



Gobbo Lord
11-08-2008, 11:50
A few things before I set of on an observation of mine. This thread is not about how underpowered Orcs are. Bring it to the discussion if its relevent, however protracted discussion on this single topic of Greenskin rubbishness should be made in the current thread.

Now onto the task at hand. 6th edition Warhammer. When it came out Games Workshop did something unprecedented. They made each and every army list null and void, producing a get you by booklet entitled Ravening Hordes to tide players over untill their respective army book was released. The reason for this? points values and statistic lines had become so unbalanced that the game had to be started from scratch. All armies basic troops were given the same basic stat line and some had plus or minus stats here and there (Dwarfs toughness 4 rather than 3, Elves balistic skill 4 rather than 3). They then looked at all of these points values and worked out a fair points cost for each troop type depending on its abilities compared to trops from other races. The advantage of producing them all at the same time was that troops were priced accordingly and any silly, glaring errors could be dealt with.

Example "Hang on a goblin is only one point less than a skaven yet has slightly worse stats, no strength in numbers and animosity, so lets make it two points less to represent that fact"

So as the 6th edition books were released they were all based off of this list with a few tweaks here and there after months or years of playtesting. What this created was an overall balance to sixth edition. Sure some armies were underpowered (notably dark elves but they were the enigmas that didnt follow the trend) compared to the others but overall the game was fair and all armies seemed to be priced right.

Then along comes 7th edition. Now rather than folow the same method it seems authors are making up points values etc according to what they think they should be rather than based on any type of reasoning. Points decreases follow no set pattern and some units are recieving heavy decreases in points whilst gaining extra stats and abilities whilst others are recieving points increases for no forseeable reason.

I know another booklet could not have been produced but would it have been so hard to set a standard at the start,

"right fellas we want people to buy more miniatures so well implement a points reduction of say 3 points average for cavalry and 1 point average for core, well look in more detail with each book" this would have produced the correct results. And yes sometimes they could have bucked the trend (Dark Elves as they needed a boost)

I am now going to put down an example of how 7th is messing up points values so they make no sense whatsoever. Yes im using goblins as an example but they are the army i play and so the experience which im talking about. Nobody can say that this makes sense, though im sure some of you will try...

To upgrade a goblin unit to have command models costs

8 points for a champion (gaining 1 extra WS 2 attack)
8 points for a standard bearer (gaining +1 combat resolution but also giving away 100 vps if the unit breaks n combat)
4 points for a musician (gaining all the benefits they offer for rallying etc.)

So thats 20 points for the command of WS 2 low leadership troops who suffer from animosity.

To upgrade a dark elf spear unit to have command costs

6 points for a champion (gaining 1 extra WS 3 attack and the ability to take 25 points worth of magic items)
6 points for a standard bearer (gaining +1 combat resolution but also giving away 100 vps if the unit breaks n combat)
3 points for a musician (gaining all the benefits they offer for rallying etc.)

So goblin command with their extra WS2 attack, low leadership and animosity costs 20 points.
Whilst dark elf command costs 15 points with their extra movement, WS3 attack, 25 points of magic items, average leadership.

This can not be right (waits for someone to say its absolutly fair and correct, Mad Doc.... you out there) surely no one person can agree that this is a fair value for both sets of command, but it is the case. I should also point out that both of these books are the 7th edition versions for their respective armies and so the points arnt going to be changing any time soon.

So what are your thoughts on points values in 7th edition, is the balance so rightly struck in 6th edition coming unglued with special army wide rules not being taken into account, points changes not following any pattern, and troops being given higher and higher stats. I personaly cant wait for chaos warriors of some sort to be stronger than a troll or a kroxigor.... what about you?

Braad
11-08-2008, 11:58
ORCS ARE UNDERPOWERED! OMG!!!
There you have it. Not that its true or something...

Concerning the actual topic...
I think the main problem is that someone at GW had the idea that every new army must be better and more powerfull so that all the kids go buy it.
Instead of keeping the game balanced they go for the sales. If a new army is a bit less powerfull than before, people don't run massively to the shops.

That's it. That's what I think is happening.

EvC
11-08-2008, 12:11
That's interesting. I played a Night goblin horde a while back and was a bit curious as to why none of his units had bosses; some had musos, some had standards, but no bosses. Now I see why!

Inevitable power creep is sad. To be honest, I feel if I'm using my Vampires, then an Orc player should get an extra 10% points to compensate. People will try and tell us everything is perfectly balanced, but that is patently untrue.

Benigno (WE)
11-08-2008, 12:34
Until the new O&G book releases, you will not see a balanced greenskin army.

And I am pretty sad because I use Wood Elves, and we are the last army to be revised >_<

Urgat
11-08-2008, 12:36
ORCS ARE UNDERPOWERED! OMG!!!
There you have it. Not that its true or something...

Whinning aside, it is true that the earlier 7th ed books (and yes, that does include orcs and gobs) do have some expensive unit options compared to the latest books, for no viable balance reason.

Conotor
11-08-2008, 13:03
I still find O&G the hardest army to beat. (I have not yet played demons). Bolt throwers ruin my expensive units and fanatics, even when i get my skinks to discharge them, are much more of a danger to me then to my opponents inexpensive troops. Their magic weapons are also very useful.

Thommy H
11-08-2008, 13:14
So goblin command with their extra WS2 attack, low leadership and animosity costs 20 points.
Whilst dark elf command costs 15 points with their extra movement, WS3 attack, 25 points of magic items, average leadership.

A command group is an upgrade for a unit, not for three models. You can't just look at their value in isolation. Goblins come in units of at least 20, which means that the effect of a Standard and Musician is greater for them than for an (average) unit of Dark Elves.

eagletsi1
11-08-2008, 13:32
I think the real problem is that with GW now bring special character back into the game and them not being play test and unbalanced.

They have brought back the Herohammer portion of the game that the 6th edition got rid of. Now alot of people in the new books play special characters, and GW loves it because now there is a reason to buy extra units of the same type, since some special chars allow it.

I have no problem with Special character if GW would just release a book quarterly that updates everyones characters in past books and tones down the character in the new books that are overpowered.

I think GW figures back when they had herohammer they made more money so thats what people want, and they are wrong IMO. What people want is a balanced and fun game.

eagletsi

Urgat
11-08-2008, 13:51
A command group is an upgrade for a unit, not for three models. You can't just look at their value in isolation. Goblins come in units of at least 20, which means that the effect of a Standard and Musician is greater for them than for an (average) unit of Dark Elves.

That logic is kindda backward no? The value of a command for a gob unit isn't so great, a standard is just an opportunity for the enemy to get 50 VP more, it's harder to get with a better unit of whatever. No matter what, a crappy unit with a command group remains a crappy unit, and a better unit with a command group is still a better unit. The effects, greater for DE?
Musician: +1 to rally, well, that's 6 or 7 (depending on the gob brand) versus 9 for DE...
Champion: just compare stats
banner: obviously more kills for the DE than for gobs, so even more CR

What does the size of a unit have to do with it anyway? Still, like hell you don't see 20 strong DE units.

Finally, gobs are supposed to be cheap, expendable units. What's the point in giving them more expensive options otherwise, if not to artificially make them more expensive?

Nah, I think you're looking way too far for reasons, the only reason is that things get cheaper with each new book, and that's it.

Really, with that internal balance deal and the "look at the big picture" idea that comes with it, it's becoming silly, you can justify any price that way. Yeah, I could say that command groups are more expensive in O&G armies because they've glot access to cheap artillery :/
Problem is, that's not an O&G problem, that's something all the earlier books suffer from. What's the reason for the others?

That being said, it's pretty obvious, the why and the how, so discussing it is like totally pointless >>

Lijacote
11-08-2008, 13:58
I think the real problem is that with GW now bring special character back into the game and them not being play test and unbalanced.

How do you know they're not play-tested? Is every single special character unbalanced? How are they more unbalanced than say, fanatics? Is it the "special" portion of the title, and the place they hold in armies the reason th ey are unbalanced?


They have brought back the Herohammer portion of the game that the 6th edition got rid of. Now alot of people in the new books play special characters, and GW loves it because now there is a reason to buy extra units of the same type, since some special chars allow it.

Herohammer, oh yes, unit champion special characters, totally over-powering, aren't they.


I have no problem with Special character if GW would just release a book quarterly that updates everyones characters in past books and tones down the character in the new books that are overpowered.

Do you have more of a problem with special characters being over-powered than with say, Grave Guard being over-powered (not saying they are)?


I think GW figures back when they had herohammer they made more money so thats what people want, and they are wrong IMO. What people want is a balanced and fun game.

I find special characters fun and sort-of-balanced. If I kill Teclis with some furies, it's great. It's Teclis dying, you know... stupid old fart.


eagletsi

Sorry for the wall of quote-fighting.

The SkaerKrow
11-08-2008, 14:00
The most recent High Elf book represented the beginning of the 7th Edition army book cycle. The Greenskins and Empire both got caught in some strange time warp, essentially getting 6th Edition books during the 7th Edition of the game. If you want to compare point values between units to find the balance of the current cycle, you have to start with High Elves and work forward. It's unfortunate, and hopefully GW will at some point offer a revision that makes more of the options in the Orc and Goblins army book practical for use.

Thommy H
11-08-2008, 14:22
What does the size of a unit have to do with it anyway?

A command group is an upgrade for a unit, not for three models. A Standard, for example, is more valuable for an average-sized unit of Goblins than it is for an average-sized unit of Dark Elves. The cost is based on the most likely size of unit for a given troop type and also on the comparative quality of the troops - Dark Elves don't actually need a command group as much as Goblins do, so it costs more.


Really, with that internal balance deal and the "look at the big picture" idea that comes with it, it's becoming silly, you can justify any price that way. Yeah, I could say that command groups are more expensive in O&G armies because they've glot access to cheap artillery :/

Yeah, you could say that. It could be perfectly valid too. You can't just take one figure and say "this costs too much!" Models don't exist in isolation: they come in units, and units come in armies. Whether a unit is Core or Special or Rare could affect its points value, as well as what it's competing with in each of those categories. A fast unit is much more valuable in a slow moving army. Artillery is much more valuable in an army with no guns.

You can't just mathhammer a single model and work out that a whole army - or a whole edition! - is unbalanced. It's insane. Individual models don't mean anything in Warhammer. It's a unit-based game.

Dark_Mage99
11-08-2008, 14:22
You can't really compare the points values of two entirely different units' command groups. Goblins are an entirely different beast to Dark Elf spearmen - and also cost half as many points per model. A Dark Elf champ being two points cheaper than a Gobbo champ doesn't mean there is a lack of balance...

wizuriel
11-08-2008, 14:29
How do you know they're not play-tested? Is every single special character unbalanced? How are they more unbalanced than say, fanatics? Is it the "special" portion of the title, and the place they hold in armies the reason th ey are unbalanced?

i find alot of the newer SC (HE book and onwards) are unbalanced beceause
1) alot of them tend to be lord level characters for a hero slot
2) They are usually underpriced (just try making a lord level character that has similar abilities to the special variety).
3) Alot of them dominate whatever they were designed for and have little weaknesses

marv335
11-08-2008, 14:42
funny that, I watched a goblin army take a Dark Elves army last night.

Urgat
11-08-2008, 15:23
A command group is an upgrade for a unit, not for three models. A Standard, for example, is more valuable for an average-sized unit of Goblins than it is for an average-sized unit of Dark Elves. The cost is based on the most likely size of unit for a given troop type and also on the comparative quality of the troops - Dark Elves don't actually need a command group as much as Goblins do, so it costs more.



Yeah, you could say that. It could be perfectly valid too. You can't just take one figure and say "this costs too much!" Models don't exist in isolation: they come in units, and units come in armies. Whether a unit is Core or Special or Rare could affect its points value, as well as what it's competing with in each of those categories. A fast unit is much more valuable in a slow moving army. Artillery is much more valuable in an army with no guns.

You can't just mathhammer a single model and work out that a whole army - or a whole edition! - is unbalanced. It's insane. Individual models don't mean anything in Warhammer. It's a unit-based game.


Granted.
Now, then, I'd argue DE command should cost more. They've got it all, scout, skirmish, light cav, nasty warmachines, heavy cavalry, cheap infantry, elite infantry, overwhelming magic, monsters, ranged and melee. Internal balance would require some limits, then.
I'm not denying the logic is valid, but it's just not so easy to apply or judge. For once, no players takes all the choices available to them, so each unit would have to be balanced internally compared to certain builds, and not just the whole armybook. That's impossible, I'm sure we will all agree.

Anyway, I'm not saying that 7th edition is unbalanced because of that or anything (what the hell does that mean anyway?), just that some choices are clearly overpriced. I'm not taking goblin champs either, and there's a reason to that (three, actually: for that price, I can almost get three gobs, instead I get one WS2 attack, and offer the enemy the opportunity to get overkills w/o risking anything).


funny that, I watched a goblin army take a Dark Elves army last night.

My snots won a round of combat against bloodletters once, does this prove they're a competent combat unit? besides, I can't even see your point :p

Edit: hargh, why do I even post in that topic? It DOES sound like O&G whinning, again ><

Chiron
11-08-2008, 15:39
TK Chariot champions cost 20 points each... suck it up goblin players, suck it up...

quina2525
11-08-2008, 15:51
They made each and every army list null and void, producing a get you by booklet entitled Ravening Hordes to tide players over untill their respective army book was released. The reason for this?


Because of the move from cards to dice for the magic phase.. :angel:

FatCat
11-08-2008, 15:56
Do you remember the Ravening Hordes Chaos list? Careful what you wish for.


Ditto TK chariots. Full comman is around a GAZILLION points :)

Bloodknight
11-08-2008, 16:03
That gazillion is closer to 50 points ;), that is why the most you ever see is a standard bearer once in a while for the magic banner. Typically it is just 3 chariots per unit without any command models.

WusteGeist
11-08-2008, 17:24
I have said it many times, when it comes to GW and the price of units or models in each codex its all balanced and relevant to all other models and units in that codex. The problem begins when you try to compare the cost of anyone one model of one codex to anyone model from any OTHER codex. GW said a long long time ago either in a white dwarf or on there site, that they had no set fast and firm point cost system. That its a kinda of a is this fair what should that cost thing.

You can try and say all you want that a basic elf spearman and a basic dark elf spearman should be the same base points. Problem is you will always have your math wrong, because the system does not use a mathematical forumal of any sort. They (GW) use there system of "does this feel right".

My point is thus, stop complaining about cost of models, while some things remain costly or odd values, GW is slowly but surely refining not just the cost issues in each codex but also the usability and over all quality of each codex.

catbarf
11-08-2008, 18:08
Yeah, you could say that. It could be perfectly valid too. You can't just take one figure and say "this costs too much!" Models don't exist in isolation: they come in units, and units come in armies. Whether a unit is Core or Special or Rare could affect its points value, as well as what it's competing with in each of those categories. A fast unit is much more valuable in a slow moving army. Artillery is much more valuable in an army with no guns.

'Hmm, my army has expensive command and cheap guns- okay, I just won't take any command units, and it's time to stock up on artillery. Min-maxing, here we come! Thank you GW!'

Or

'I don't like artillery, but I like infantry blocks. Why do I pay so much more for command? This sucks.'

See why that sort of balancing doesn't work?

Muad'Dib
11-08-2008, 18:47
My point is thus, stop complaining about cost of models, while some things remain costly or odd values, GW is slowly but surely refining not just the cost issues in each codex but also the usability and over all quality of each codex.
Well, the problem is, that, in fact, they are not refining the books. Each book seems to use completely different logic. The most infamous case, I think, is the orc cavalry - which was supposed to be part of general higher cost of cavalry in 7th edition. However, it was applied only to O&G....
Terror for VC characters costs 25 points. Dark Elves Deathmask costs 50 points (AFAIK).
Dark Elves get a practical 2+/3+ ward for 35 pts., other armies get 4+ wards for 45 points.
There are more examples, but all of them show one thing - GW does not 'refine' their way of writing codexes, at all. Rather, they apply bandaids such as army-wide AFS or Hatred...

There is no single design philosophy - except maybe the fact to sell new models coming out with the army books. And that is why the books power level varies so much - each of the authors is almost as if living in his own world, and the books might have internal balance (I don't personally belive in it - just compare units like Silver Helms and Dragon Princes), but overally the game becomes more imbalanced - with some calling it power creep.

Ben
11-08-2008, 18:49
I'd love to say you are wrong, but the HE book onwards is a level of power above the Empire and OnG book. Playing VC or HE with 6th ed lists or the first couple of 7th ed lists shows a great disparity of power. A skillful general can defeat the tougher lists, but it is not useless white elephant units like Blood Knights that cause the imbalance, but the low cost of grave guard and the sheer power levels of VC magic make the list a difficult one to beat.

For OnG players, I've found the list well balanced against Empire and 6th ed lists, but it does struggle with the lists from HE onwards.

I think GW decided to revise the power levels of armies midway through 7th, and it came just too late for OnG.

EvC
11-08-2008, 19:02
I see some people in this thread trying to wave off the fact that gobbo commands cost more than Dark Elf commands because of the size of the units involved. I find that logic to be quite spurious, but there's one way to determine if it's valid or not: could someone tell us the cost of command for Goblin Wolf Riders/ Spider Riders, and also the cost of command for Dark Riders please. Both have a similar role in the army, and both are fielded at the same unit size (Typically 5). So which race has the cheaper command? I'm honestly curious to know.

Grinloc
11-08-2008, 19:23
Wolf Riders Command: 12/6/12. Unit of 5 with full command...95pts.
Spider Riders Command: 12/6/12. Unit of 5 with full command and spears (optional, took the upgrade to make the units "equal")...95pts.

Dark Riders Command: 14/7/14. Unit of 5 with full command...120pts.

Goblins Command: 8/4/8. Unit of 20 with full command (spears, LA, shield)...120pts.
Dark Elf Spearmen Command: 6/3/6. Unit of 20 with full command (spear, shield, LA, no 25pts magic item)...155pts.

Both units are equally equipped, differences besides 35pts: +1M, +2WS, +1BS, +3I, +2Ld, no animosity, hatred.

Those two units can be compared to an extent, since they can serve a similar purpose, like SCR. Sadly the pricing of goblins doesn't take their special rules and stat line into consideration.

EvC
11-08-2008, 19:31
Cool, cheers. Well, perhaps there is some merit to the idea that Goblins should get more expensive command because they run larger units. Though, don't Goblins have to be used in larger units because they're so poor, meaning you're paying more points for command as a direct result of the unit's weakness? Sounds off to me...

snyggejygge
11-08-2008, 19:56
Games development and miniature manufacturing, these 2 things connect, most companies who produce miniatures, also provide rules for them. Unfortunately there is a down side to this business model from a gamers perspective.

Letīs face it, GW wants to sell miniatures, sometimes a certain range of minis donīt sell well, what happens? They make new rules for it, to sell more models, & sometimes itīs the opposite, when they are about to design new models, they need to ensure that those new models needs to sell, they donīt want people to just use their old minis, so they come up w. some very good rules (Bloodknights come to mind, as does the availability of the giant). So by this reasoning we get better & better units, in order to sell the new units.

Ben
11-08-2008, 20:28
I'm not sure the statline being rubbish is a reason to have more expensive command, or why would command for elite infantry and heavy cavalry cost more? I think they literally decided to change the power level of lists after OnG and this is a manifestation of it. The points for a unit of 20 DE spearmen compared to Goblins is pretty ridiculous. However Goblins were deliberately inflated in terms of point cost to encourage the use of orcs instead of common goblins (night goblins were unaffected).

Chain
11-08-2008, 20:43
When comparing between the point cost for units in the different armies you seem to be right.
Goblins costing more to get command groups then DE warriors do seem strange, but again ain't a Gobo worth 2 points?
so it's a 5+ then a 4+ to wound where it is a 3+ then a 4+ for the elf and he need to kill 3 to make it even. Of cause there's many other characteristics but I would say the Goblins should have the option of getting this at the same price as DE, not necessary cheaper, but rather around the same price they do get the same increase do they not? and you forget to add in the value of the unit to be upgraded.

Personally I find 7'th Edition to Be much more interesting then 6'th, I can look in an army book without yawning cause the units are to damn similar, where did the creativity go?
How many battles did I have through 6'th Ed 1
Played more then I can remember in 4'th and 5'th, 7'th was one of the main pulls that got me back.

Army spc rule, interesting thing, but it needs to be stabilized indeed.

Oguleth
11-08-2008, 20:54
I have always found the command group pricings to be pretty idiotic both internally (in the army book) and externally.. Take last editions Dark Elf book - the Herald, that had a staggering +1 bs and cost a fortune in points. This has in my eyes always been a problem, in most books and in most editions, there have rarely been a "sensible" pricing of command groups across the board. Goblin champions is a pretty good case too, the musician and standard works for the entire unit in a way, but the champion is a single model, and except being a challenge fodder, one can always dicuss the total value of that one model.

When it comes to comparing models without taking into account the rest of the list, it gets idiotic pretty fast, even back in RH and whatnot. Even the early army book Vampire Counts in 6th broke the whole theory that there was a basic statline with points based on it, how much it was to have one trooper with one better toughness, ws or whatever - as the "trashcore" like skellies and zombies got a higher cost than their statline would suggest, and the grave guard and such got a lower one, for various reasons.

Dark Elf Warriors for 10 points, like they were, were bad, really bad. Noone really wanted them. At heart, they are t3 with an armor save most other basic infantry have, but cost twice as much, at least. You got some better ld and ws, but youd die just as easy to heavy hitters, while other infantry could be fielded in double the amount, or be more resilient, or a combo of the two. I haven't mathhammered lately, comparing dark elves to orcs how they would match up in a fight either (not that single case scenarios like that works that well either, but just for fun), but its not exactly onesided there either.

And 6th edition was in no way a beacon of balance in any way, from RH and out it was always a flavour of the season type of army, units and character, just as it is now, like with 5th ed, and most likely before that too. So the basic point of taking up balance is pretty... wrong to me too, so I am pretty biased..

The Red Scourge
11-08-2008, 21:22
...but the champion is a single model, and except being a challenge fodder, one can always dicuss the total value of that one model.

You know, a champion is what makes a gobbo unit able to take a charging lord on a dragon head on.

Its what you use to make take the challenge from an uber character hunter, so your own hero can butcher infantry and make loads of CR.

He is so much more than an extra attack/BS/Ld/whatever.

Arnizipal
11-08-2008, 21:23
A few things before I set of on an observation of mine. This thread is not about how underpowered Orcs are. Bring it to the discussion if its relevent, however protracted discussion on this single topic of Greenskin rubbishness should be made in the current thread.
Too late it seems. This thread was doomed when you used Goblins as an example.


So as the 6th edition books were released they were all based off of this list with a few tweaks here and there after months or years of playtesting. What this created was an overall balance to sixth edition. Sure some armies were underpowered (notably dark elves but they were the enigmas that didnt follow the trend) compared to the others but overall the game was fair and all armies seemed to be priced right.
It's funny how fast people forget. For most of sixth edition there was whining about Skaven SAD, Bretonnian RAF and Tzeentch Flying Circus armies. And let's not forget the whole Steam Tank debacle and how underpowered Dark and High Elves were. Oh, and greenskin magic was too good.

People will always complain, even when things are pretty good.

O&G'sRule
11-08-2008, 21:26
Relative points values will never and have never been exactly right, the playtesting time you'd need would delay release well beyond whats profitable, but theyre not as bad as has been said. The only time you look at 2 armies set up before a game and know who's going to win is when one side (usually a small child) has structured their army badly. But I've seen armies of all types, fighting against armies of all types, all with good generals (players) and its not been obvious, and actually have often had the opposite results to what you'd expect after reading this board. If you can't win with an army, of any race, it's your fault (well sometimes the dice) not the books fault.
To answer the question, no 7th isn't ruining the balance.

Bloodknight
11-08-2008, 21:27
Terror for VC characters costs 25 points. Dark Elves Deathmask costs 50 points (AFAIK).

That is pretty much in line with earlier pricings. Tomb Kings pay 35 for Terror. This is probably because Tomb Kings models as well as Vampires already cause Fear, so they only get the Terror bonus, while a Dark Elf gets Fear and Terror.

Chain
11-08-2008, 21:37
I must say I find the complain some have about the Special characters to be a bit much.

Take Tullaris for instance his a Unit Champion with 1 wound ASL 5+ armor save and has a price tag of 95 points... This guy is unfair for what he brings?

Malekith is a beast, but if any elf is he has to be the one, Notic his price tag? you could field 4 Lords for his value... and still have points to spare

Mireadur
11-08-2008, 22:09
GW said a long long time ago either in a white dwarf or on there site, that they had no set fast and firm point cost system. That its a kinda of a is this fair what should that cost thing.

I take they posted this during 7th edition? because in 6th there was a unit pricing standard for sure.

The problem with the elves was just they gave too much value to the extra movement BS and I when those stats didnt seem to help them killing/surviving anywhere close to S/T.

O&G'sRule
11-08-2008, 22:36
I take they posted this during 7th edition? because in 6th there was a unit pricing standard for sure.

The problem with the elves was just they gave too much value to the extra movement BS and I when those stats didnt seem to help them killing/surviving anywhere close to S/T.

So on that basis an orc should be more expensive than an elf?

Mireadur
11-08-2008, 22:42
well, it appears they must think so, since DE spearmen are the same cost as an spearorc. Take Hatred into account and...:evilgrin:


EDIT: not that i agree with the idea btw

O&G'sRule
11-08-2008, 22:49
Perhaps GW should make all playtesting results public on their website, it'd explain their decisions and end alot of complaining.

sulla
11-08-2008, 22:54
Whinning aside, it is true that the earlier 7th ed books (and yes, that does include orcs and gobs) do have some expensive unit options compared to the latest books, for no viable balance reason.

Really? Other than dark elf warriors and crossbowmen, all their champs seem in line with, say the Empire's champs. COK champs cost more than knightly order champs, corsair champs cost more than any of the empire core infantry champs, outrider champs are more expensive than DR heralds but then they do get better bs and already have a very good gun included in the cost of the basic trooper, greatsword champs cost less than BG champs and the same as executioner champs so I don't think there can be any complaints there other than the fact that GW have decided to give dark elf warriors and crossbowmen (and their command options) very low cost.

Likewise for O&G, the goblin command (for all goblin units) is expensive, but the command for orc units is not particularly so, especially considering the extra point of strength they get, combined with an extra attack.

The problem only really comes up when you compared Dark Elf Warriors and crossbowmen (who have clearly been discounted for some reason) with Goblins (who have equally obviously been penalised). But since neither unit is particularly useful unsupported in combat, is this even really an issue? Both the DE units and the goblin infantry probably don't need comand at all really.

zak
11-08-2008, 23:07
GW have not blown the balance set in 6th edition, because there was very little balance to blow in 6th. 7th edition is certainly no worse than 6th edition and a great improvement on 5th.
GW can only do so much in terms of play testing. They have a schedule and need to move on to the next army. How many people would start moaning if there army was put back in the production line. I am just suprised that the armies all balance so well considering here are 16 odd armies and 150+ units.

Muad'Dib
11-08-2008, 23:18
That is pretty much in line with earlier pricings. Tomb Kings pay 35 for Terror. This is probably because Tomb Kings models as well as Vampires already cause Fear, so they only get the Terror bonus, while a Dark Elf gets Fear and Terror.

I guess you could use this line of thinking to justify slightly increased cost for Deathmask - but 25 points more is just way too much IMO, 5-10 would be sensible. The end result is still the same - the character gets a quite powerful ability, Terror, and VC get it for 25 while DE have to shell out 50 points. (VC also have twice as much points for magic items on their characters...)
The Tomb King example clearly shows how the same ability costs differently in different books - for no apparent reason. Unless you suggest that TK value Terror more then VC.

Oguleth
11-08-2008, 23:39
There were notes in several WDs during 6th ed when new army books came out about why certain units were priced the way they were, like skellies/zombies/grave guard/black knights etc by Alessio Cavatore (somehow I never seem to remember the spelling of that name..) in the VC example, and some other cases.

Regarding if elves should be less expensive than an orc.. For fluffyness reasons I must say I agree 100% with the idea that elves in theory could outnumber basic orcs completly nuts. But for gaming purposes, especially in this case, having basic elf infantry without any fancy extra rules costing lots, just for the sake of it, would just lead to noone taking them (again). I really dont get the gripe about in just a unit vs unit comparison orcs coming up so short either.. They are harder to kill with shooting, also get the chance to waagh, offset a bit by randomness, and yes have lower ld.

The goblin command does seem a bit costly - and I cant say I see people take either banner or boss often. But I can most likely find cases (now I for sure feel like I am repeating myself) in every army book from the last 4 editions where the price of command group for a unit has been hopeless.

I have never liked special characters much - so seldom have anything to do with them in the game since 5th ed (except in one tournament where someones Tyrion had his horse killed in all games, back in "balanced and thought out 6th edition", but nothing can really compare to that), so dont really know if they are getting meaner and meaner. More fluff in the books I enjoy, and most special characters at least have a rewrite, compared to most other fluff that is just a reprint from 10 years or so back in time.

Grinloc
12-08-2008, 00:21
I wish GW would be more "open".
How long would it take GW to balance the design decitions of an armybook? 2 weeks? A month? No idea really.

How much feedback would they get when posting their game balancing steps publically on the internet...both biased and reasonable feedback.
It would also fill their individual customer with some sort of confidence, a confidence due to possibly being a part (even a small one) of the bigger picture of game balance. Afterall customer perception is to some extent a basis for a healthy business.

marv335
12-08-2008, 00:25
Perhaps GW should make all playtesting results public on their website, it'd explain their decisions and end alot of complaining.

No it wouldn't. It'd just give people more things to complain about.

Ward.
12-08-2008, 06:51
I guess you could use this line of thinking to justify slightly increased cost for Deathmask - but 25 points more is just way too much IMO, 5-10 would be sensible. The end result is still the same - the character gets a quite powerful ability, Terror, and VC get it for 25 while DE have to shell out 50 points. (VC also have twice as much points for magic items on their characters...)
The Tomb King example clearly shows how the same ability costs differently in different books - for no apparent reason. Unless you suggest that TK value Terror more then VC.

I don't mean to step on bloodknights toes but if memory serves me it's easier for the vampire counts to get terror meaning there's more chance for a unit to pass it's terror check against something else an make that the VC's upgrade useless.


I wish GW would be more "open".
How long would it take GW to balance the design decitions of an armybook? 2 weeks? A month? No idea really.

How much feedback would they get when posting their game balancing steps publicly on the internet...both biased and reasonable feedback.
It would also fill their individual customer with some sort of confidence, a confidence due to possibly being a part (even a small one) of the bigger picture of game balance. Afterall customer perception is to some extent a basis for a healthy business.

Odds are it'd be mostly abuse and unreasonable wish lists with the occasional well thought out post/ bile disguised as a well thought out post.

Look up the new line of thinking towards open testing regarding video games and beta testing and how creativity is being stifled by the loudest members (who are often the most resistant to change) of an audience before the product has a chance to be finished.

Zazoo
12-08-2008, 07:06
I have to agree with all the people that have said that 7th ed really starts at the HE army book.

An example ive used before to show imbalance is compare a Flesh Hound to a Yhetee, both are a special choice and serve a similar role.

M WS S T W I A Ld Additional Rules Pts
Flesh hound 8 5 5 4 2 5 2 7 Daemon, 5+ Ward Save, MR 3 35
Yhetee 7 3 5 4 3 4 3 7 Icy aura, All terrain 65

that is a massive pts difference for what?
Extra wound? When Yhetees dont have a save of any sort where the flesh hound has a 5+ ward!!

I know it is an extreme case but it is a definate difference in power level.

blueon462
12-08-2008, 11:30
There was balance in 6th edition? I must have missed it. This game has never been "balanced" and probably never will be. Yet its fun nonetheless.

Muad'Dib
12-08-2008, 11:55
I don't mean to step on bloodknights toes but if memory serves me it's easier for the vampire counts to get terror meaning there's more chance for a unit to pass it's terror check against something else an make that the VC's upgrade useless.


Well, you can also think about it in other way - why should VC, who already have 3 possible terror causers in rare slots, gain easier access to even more terror causers? (who can get M9 for 10 points or flying if it's a lord) Remember, it is the player owning the terror causing units that decides where to put them - as such, he can send a Vargulf to the right flank, and a Vampire to the left flank. And thus it is rather easy to not waste the terror causers.

The Clairvoyant
12-08-2008, 12:18
it should also be pointed out that the vampire is immune to psychology so upgrading to terror gains the bonus of causing terror over already causing fear, but doesn't gain any bonuses in terms of being charged by a terror causing creature as it is already immune to psychology. A model that is not ItP *should* pay more for a terror upgrade as it gains fear and terror AND gains the ability to not fear/be terrified of other fear/terror causers.


All of that besides, i still find the game to be rather nicely balanced.
6th edition laid down the foundations of the game and 7th turns the power up a notch. In 6th, troops were the focus and characters were toned down, in terms of points allocation rather than number of items and a character number limit rather than a %age limit, coupled with a general toning down of stat lines so that T6 is a rarity and even T5 isn't as common as it was. i think these factors have restored characters to a level where they do not dominate the game. With 7th, characters have been upgraded, true, but not to the herohammer of old. The main focus of the game is still on the troops.

Complaining about x isn't as good as y never comes up in conversations with my gaming friends. We talk about our armies and we discuss changes that have happened over the years, but i've never mourned the loss of a master necromancer and his WS7 and A5. I just get on and play with the rules i have

At the end of the day, i want to play a game that is fun. I have that.

Chadjabdoul
12-08-2008, 12:41
To say "the game was never balanced, so stop complaining" is missing the point.
The point is two equally priced (in pts values) armies facing each other should stand an equal chance of winning. The whole idea of points values is to create balance, and let the game be decided by good strategy and dice rolling.
Do points values work as they are? No. Some units never see the battlefield simply because there are better value for points troops.
Is it right to say just donīt take champions or banners and save points for more spear chukkas? No because points values should make sure that EVERY choice can have a use.

Do we have a right to complain because of that?
Hell yeah. The hobby costs a lot, and GW is getting our money to provide us with a fun experience. Is the game still fun? Yes it is, when you play friendly games.

However keep in mind that some players like to go to tournaments and play to win. If, when they get there, they realise that they are playing at a disadvantage not because they are facing a better general but because of unbalanced rules they are unhappy about it. Should they be? Maybe not, life can offer many joys outside warhammer and often complaining only hurts you without fixing any problems.
Does this mean that they are wrong and the game is perfectly fine? Not in the slightest.
We pay good money and ask for a balanced game. GW gets our money and should try to provide us with one.

blueon462
12-08-2008, 14:47
To say "the game was never balanced, so stop complaining" is missing the point.
The point is two equally priced (in pts values) armies facing each other should stand an equal chance of winning. The whole idea of points values is to create balance, and let the game be decided by good strategy and dice rolling.
Do points values work as they are? No. Some units never see the battlefield simply because there are better value for points troops.
Is it right to say just donīt take champions or banners and save points for more spear chukkas? No because points values should make sure that EVERY choice can have a use.

Do we have a right to complain because of that?
Hell yeah. The hobby costs a lot, and GW is getting our money to provide us with a fun experience. Is the game still fun? Yes it is, when you play friendly games.

However keep in mind that some players like to go to tournaments and play to win. If, when they get there, they realise that they are playing at a disadvantage not because they are facing a better general but because of unbalanced rules they are unhappy about it. Should they be? Maybe not, life can offer many joys outside warhammer and often complaining only hurts you without fixing any problems.
Does this mean that they are wrong and the game is perfectly fine? Not in the slightest.
We pay good money and ask for a balanced game. GW gets our money and should try to provide us with one.


In that case im quite frustrated that i can't drug up a witch elf and give her a large ball and chain and hurl her out of my spearmen units.

My point remains, sixth edition was not balanced either. This game tends to be cyclical thanks to the way they release army books.

I'm not arguing the point that currently orcs are lacking. However, so far out of all the 7th edition books they are the only ones that will have an issue competing. So...get organized and perhaps you can manage to get an edit like the dark elves did for 6th edition (as much as that helped lolz).

Ward.
13-08-2008, 04:59
Well, you can also think about it in other way - why should VC, who already have 3 possible terror causers in rare slots, gain easier access to even more terror causers? (who can get M9 for 10 points or flying if it's a lord) Remember, it is the player owning the terror causing units that decides where to put them - as such, he can send a Vargulf to the right flank, and a Vampire to the left flank. And thus it is rather easy to not waste the terror causers.

because vampires are already pretty expensive to begin with. As a rule of thumb though you should think how many people actually take the terror upgrade anyway.

Things like champions are a good example of things that need to be cheaper because even though they probably should be in every unit they weren't/ aren't.

Seredain
13-08-2008, 16:52
To say "the game was never balanced, so stop complaining" is missing the point.
The point is two equally priced (in pts values) armies facing each other should stand an equal chance of winning.

Well that was never true and still isn't! 7th ED High Elves can tear apart horde armies and outshoot Chaos, but Dwarfs' armour, artillary and magic defence has always made HE generals scratch their heads and still does.

Not that they could never be beaten, but it has always been true that certain armies find some opponents easier and some harder. Dwarfs move slower and strike after most armies, so the HE's main attributes achieve the same advantage as, say, Empire troops. And the Dwarfs have ways of countering them (less so now the HE have ASF great weapons, haha!). However, a Battle Banner cavalry tank to the centre of their line makes the stubborn units on the dwarf flanks look silly, and RBT's will slay a dwarf gunline, but I digress... 6th ED HE troops were certainly a lot weaker than they are now, infantry stupidly so, but I managed to win because back then they had core heavy cav (not fluffy but awesome), chaneller honour, incredible ring of corin, the Battle Banner (praise be, oh mighty flag), RBT's and I put my infantry into combats they could win on the charge.

There are always ways around an army's problems. It's as true in 7th as it was in 6th (just check out the admirable 'get up and go' attuitude they've been carrying around on Druchii. net for recent years).

For the orcs (I've been playing them a lot recently), I've found goblin chariots to be awesome for their cost, and orc magic absolutely rocks. I hammered Brettonians with orcs last week with a black orc tank, cheap BT's and lots of 'eadbutting and divine green stamping. Chin up, ladz.

But this isn't about orcs. Obviously.

Oguleth
13-08-2008, 22:18
To say "the game was never balanced, so stop complaining" is missing the point.

The whole point of the thread (seemingly) was that the OP stated that 7th ed ruined something that was present in 6th ed. That myself and others have stated is a bit warped statement. Opinions/whines about how it currently is I dont really mind, but was arguing about the basic purpose of the post, that is the thread title and all.

catbarf
14-08-2008, 03:10
My point remains, sixth edition was not balanced either. This game tends to be cyclical thanks to the way they release army books.

Personally, I don't mind some units being a tad more expensive than similar ones in other books- what I strongly dislike are gimmicky special rules. ASF, for example, or the multiple-casting rules for VC. You can't re-balance them for a new edition without dropping the abilities, so it sets a bad precedent for other armies.

Lunzo
14-08-2008, 04:01
As a dark elf player I say that spearelves are a good example of the balance gone wrong. Something being too cheap is just as damaging to game balance as overpricing a unit. I think dark elf warriors were correctly costed last edition after the revision at 7pts (or 8 with shield) each, and command costing 10, 10, 5. The cheaper point cost and hatred is just insane.

I think goblin command should be around 1/2 what it costs at the moment. It's obvious flicking through most other army books that command price is relative to a unit's basic trooper's point cost.

eagletsi1
15-08-2008, 12:46
Lijacote:

I know this because I know 3 play testers who have done so for a combined 3 years and none of them have play tested special characters execept for the daemons which they toned down. You should have seen them before the play test.

So I know that special characters have never been tested and now GW will not update old books special characters.

I think they know the younger crowd love special characters and also there benefits. Thus they have starting releasing them again.

Now this is fine, but update the old out of date characters and tone down the ones that weren't play tested.

Keep the game about strategy not about how a special character can completely make some enemy armies useless.

Or just say: All special characters are by both players consent only.

P.S. - I know the game is unbalanced, but GW should be working to balance it not make it more unbalanced.

eagletsi

Ixquic
15-08-2008, 13:03
You can't tell me with a straight face that a character with a Rune Fang and Laurels of Victory or a guy with a MR3, causes fear, strength 5 ASF (and D3 wounds to mounted models) a 4+ ward save and if he's killed does d6 wounds that ignore armor saves are anywhere near balanced. I'm not even going to go into Demon characters.

The game can never be "balanced" in a perfect way but it definetely seems special characters are starting to show up in every army list and there might be a reason why.

Urgat
15-08-2008, 13:53
I have to agree with all the people that have said that 7th ed really starts at the HE army book.

An example ive used before to show imbalance is compare a Flesh Hound to a Yhetee, both are a special choice and serve a similar role.

M WS S T W I A Ld Additional Rules Pts
Flesh hound 8 5 5 4 2 5 2 7 Daemon, 5+ Ward Save, MR 3 35
Yhetee 7 3 5 4 3 4 3 7 Icy aura, All terrain 65

that is a massive pts difference for what?
Extra wound? When Yhetees dont have a save of any sort where the flesh hound has a 5+ ward!!

I know it is an extreme case but it is a definate difference in power level.

Well, yhetees (Ill take your spelling hey, I don't even wanna try and guess how it should be written in English :p) also ignore terrains, heck, even impassable ones. That's some benefit.
As for if they're overpriced or not, no comment.

Muad'Dib
15-08-2008, 13:57
because vampires are already pretty expensive to begin with. As a rule of thumb though you should think how many people actually take the terror upgrade anyway.


Well, actually Tomb Princes and Vampires cost exactly same amount of points, so they aren't that "pretty expensive" when we compare them to TK characters.

Tomb Prince. Can cast 1 bound spell on d6. Has exceptional 3W and 5T. Terror costs 35 points for him.
Vampire. Level 1 mage, has above average combat stats and exceptional magic items/bloodline powers options. (move 9 for 10 points, re-roll all hits, 2+ armour save). Terror costs 25 points for him.

Tomb King characters (including Lich Priests) aren't too cheap either - yet they have to pay for terror more. I don't really see any reason for this other then the fact that 7th edition books are generally better (or have cheaper options, however you want to call it)

EvC
15-08-2008, 14:21
It's not wise to compare so directly like that. Some armies pay more than others for the same stuff for good reasons. However in the case of Tomb Kings, when they were released most armies suffered horribly from psychology; now in the age of far more Vampires, Daemons, Forest Spirits, and even Empire who often have 3+ ItP units per army, that means that Terror is less useful: hence new army books will not make models pay as much for terror, due to its lessened utility.

Tomb Kings do get a few other benefits that few other armies have, like the Standard of Sundering not affecting them, nor the Ring of Hotek. Pretty good for an army that relies on magic, don't you think?

Znail
15-08-2008, 14:36
I know this because I know 3 play testers who have done so for a combined 3 years and none of them have play tested special characters execept for the daemons which they toned down. You should have seen them before the play test.

So I know that special characters have never been tested and now GW will not update old books special characters.

This doesnt supprice me at all and is the main reason that most non-GW tournaments ban special characters. Its pretty clear when you look at special characters that they are often over the top and the costs are fairly random. 40k used to be fairly good with special characters, but are falling again. This is mostly due to that they used to be mostly some extra stat point or equipment option you normaly couldnt get, but they are including more and more special rules and those are rarely balanced or costed properly.