PDA

View Full Version : What does the term 'overpowered' mean to you?



KronusDaSneaky
13-12-2011, 00:41
I am curious what people think of when they hear the term 'overpowered' thrown about.

To me its a very specific adjective applied to an item/character etc whose abilities, often completely unintentionally, magnify its power to a scale far in excess of what was intend. Two examples I can think of are the psychic powers Jaws of the World Wolf and Warp Rift.

I don't mind either but I cant help but both in very specific situations go from fine to entirely overpowered and out place. The former is way too powerful against low initiative Massive gribblies given its minimal cost while the latter poses a practicably insurmmountable problem for Daemons.

Overpowered is not the same as under pointed. An under pointed unit is to me something that is entirely acceptable if only the points were to be adjusted. Vendettas, GK psi-rifleman venerable dreads and Death Cult assassins are all innately fine just terribly under pointed.

carldooley
13-12-2011, 01:11
to me, overpowered means something that I cannot deal with. Along the lines of someone asking me not to take Str8+ weapons and then fielding a Land Raider or a monolith against my guard.

Kevlar
13-12-2011, 01:52
Under pointed is the same thing as over powered to me.

Units that get special abilities or wargear for "free" or at significantly reduced cost to what other older books pay for them are "over powered" in the fact that they can field a larger or more powerful army for the same point cost.

This throws the entire basis of the game out of whack since you play armies against each other based on a specific points cost. This means by spamming under costed units some armies are in effect fielding armies larger than their opponent.

This means that certain older codexes are playing at a significant disadvantage to the newer ones.

Vepr
13-12-2011, 02:10
Under pointed vs performance especially in something that can be spammed. Often this creates balance issues that other armies do not have an answer for. That being said I think overpowered units are more rare than people think. Off the top of my head I think Vendetta's and basic Grey Knights are examples of this.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 02:24
Under pointed vs performance especially in something that can be spammed. Often this creates balance issues that other armies do not have an answer for. That being said I think overpowered units are more rare than people think. Off the top of my head I think Vendetta's and basic Grey Knights are examples of this.

Death cult assassins, psyflemen, psybacks, strike squads, and purifiers, just from the GK codex.

ehlijen
13-12-2011, 02:28
As some have said, undercosted and overpowered are not neatly seperable. Undercosted is a subset of overpowered. Anything undercosted is overpowered, but not everything that is overpowered can be balanced through adjusting the points cost.

If it cannot be countered with an about even chance of success by a similarly sized army, it is undercosted and therefore overpowered. If it changes the way the game works to the point where it cannot be countered at all by enemy actions, it is overpowered but not undercosted.

Example: 5 point space marines are undercosted, but can be fixed by bumping their cost to reasonable levels. A 1000 point unit that wins the game on a 2+ rolled every turn until successful, is overpowered, but not undercosted. These are extreme, hypothetical examples, but that doesn't mean these problems don't exist in 40k as it is.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 02:37
As some have said, undercosted and overpowered are not neatly seperable. Undercosted is a subset of overpowered. Anything undercosted is overpowered, but not everything that is overpowered can be balanced through adjusting the points cost.

If it cannot be countered with an about even chance of success by a similarly sized army, it is undercosted and therefore overpowered. If it changes the way the game works to the point where it cannot be countered at all by enemy actions, it is overpowered but not undercosted.

Example: 5 point space marines are undercosted, but can be fixed by bumping their cost to reasonable levels. A 1000 point unit that wins the game on a 2+ rolled every turn until successful, is overpowered, but not undercosted. These are extreme, hypothetical examples, but that doesn't mean these problems don't exist in 40k as it is.

Actually I would argue that undercosted and overpowered are the exact same thing, not subsets of eachother. Think about it this way: if a unit is overpowered, that means it is more powerful than what exactly? A unit of equal point cost.

Imagine a graph where the X axis is point cost and the Y axis is "power level." Then draw a line from the origin to the top right of the graph, the slope may not be 1/1, but it will probably be a straight line I'd imagine. That line will be the game's balance line. Any unit on that line is balanced for its point cost. Any unit above that line is overpowered, any unit under it is underpowered. If you're designing units and you find that a unit is above the line, you can either raise the point cost by moving the unit to the right, or lower the power by moving the unit down, in order to balance it. The hardest part, however, is finding the unit's "power level." It's easy when all the unit does is take 4 missile launchers, it's a lot harder when the unit adds jump packs, the ability to split fire, has a plethora of psychic powers, etc. And the power curve for a given unit may be different than the power curve of another given unit in the same codex; a necron destroyer lord would probably be much more expensive in a Tau army than in a Tyranid army.

A unit that wins the game on a 2+ rolled every turn until successful can be given a point value, it would just be such a large point value that any army would have a very good chance of wiping it off the board in the first turn of shooting, so perhaps 3000-5000 pts. 2 warlord titans dropping strength D templates means essentially the titan player has a better than 50% chance of winning any given game: if the titan player wins first turn, he wins by tabling his opponent. If the theoretical unit's player wins first turn, he has a 2+ chance of winning, then he will lose.

You could go to the absolute extremes... say, taking a unit with a rule: if you take this unit in the army, you automatically win the game on the first movement phase of any player's turn. Then you'd balance it by going to the other extreme: infinite points for a unit of such power. If you need an exact number, take every model GW has ever produced, add their point totals together with all upgrades, then add 1 point. That's how much points such a unit would cost. If you have infinite power, you have infinite point cost, thus it can never be used.

Similarly, a unit that has 1 of every stat, has no weapons, does not score, cannot contest, cannot trap a unit fleeing, does not grant cover, and cannot be joined by independent characters might be comprised of models worth 1 point, perhaps less if you make a unit of 5 cost 3 points total.

In the case of upgrades or units that can only be used against a very specific enemy, the designers have an inherent problem. Do players custom tailor their lists to their opponent or do they have one "all-comers" list, like in a tournament? If you point cost it towards custom tailoring, something that specifically hurts daemons, for example, would be very expensive. However, if a player must use a single list regardless of opponents, that same ability would be fairly cheap, as most players don't play daemons. Thus, in the majority of games, that ability is wasted points, but in a small number of games, it can be very good. As a general rule, design choices like that make the game fairly unfun. A better choice would be like whirlwinds or combat squads or grand strategy - the ability to choose right before the game starts but after lists have been chosen.

Phazael
13-12-2011, 02:59
Undercosted-
Unit in question has fair abilities for its intended purpose and slot in the army, but simply costs too few points for its abilities. Good examples would be Crusader Henchmen, Ghazghul, quad Autocannon Dreads, Sanguinary Priests, and 90% of the Space Wolf codex. These units are not ordinarily game breaking unless the entire book is full of them (Space Wolves) or they are highly spammable (AC Dreads, Henchmen HtH units). A single undercosted unit is not going to break a book, in and of itself.

Overpowered-
These are units that have abilities that should not exist in a normal game at any cost or at the minimum within their force org slot. They are sometimes also undercosted, but not always. Usually they have powers that render entire armies nearly helpless and often do not have to be spammed to break the game. The Runepriest is probably the single best example, with two to three game busting psychic powers and the best psychic defense in the game, all for minimal points. The Manticore is also pretty damn close, with even one being able to massively impact the game. I would put Vindicare Assasins, Mephiston, Purifiers (due to Cleansing Flame), and Eldrad to this list.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 03:04
Overpowered-
These are units that have abilities that should not exist in a normal game at any cost or at the minimum within their force org slot. They are sometimes also undercosted, but not always. Usually they have powers that render entire armies nearly helpless and often do not have to be spammed to break the game. The Runepriest is probably the single best example, with two to three game busting psychic powers and the best psychic defense in the game, all for minimal points. The Manticore is also pretty damn close, with even one being able to massively impact the game. I would put Vindicare Assasins, Mephiston, Purifiers (due to Cleansing Flame), and Eldrad to this list.
So are you saying that a vindicare assassin that cost 500 pts but is otherwise exactly the same would be overpowered? Or how about if manticores were 750 pts each? Wouldn't they be so ridiculously underpowered at that point cost that no one would take them?

ehlijen
13-12-2011, 03:09
A unit that wins the game on a 2+ rolled every turn until successful can be given a point value, it would just be such a large point value that any army would have a very good chance of wiping it off the board in the first turn of shooting, so perhaps 3000-5000 pts.

I disagree. That would require that the opposing army gets first turn and that is something entirely out of their hands, meaning that to not lose, they'd have to:
-hope they get at least one turn
-hope their firepower is enough to eliminate the unit in question before it rolls a success, assuming it doesn't do so after coming from reserves.

'Hoping to get a turn' is not a valid counter to anything. My point is: some things would disrupt the normal game rules so badly, the enemy simply cannot counter it other than simply through hoping it fails on its own accord.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 03:12
I disagree. That would require that the opposing army gets first turn and that is something entirely out of their hands, meaning that to not lose, they'd have to:
-hope they get at least one turn
-hope their firepower is enough to eliminate the unit in question before it rolls a success, assuming it doesn't do so after coming from reserves.

'Hoping to get a turn' is not a valid counter to anything. My point is: some things would disrupt the normal game rules so badly, the enemy simply cannot counter it other than simply through hoping it fails on its own accord.
It is in the grand scheme of things. A unit is taken in a list to help win the game. A unit that wins on a 2+ at the start of your turn is a very good unit and must be priced fairly. If an army that takes such a unit only has a 50% chance to win any given game, is that not the perfect amount of balance? It says nothing for how fun the game is, but a list that has a near perfect 1:1 win-loss ratio regardless of player skill can't really be called overpowered. Boring, yes. Overpowered, no. And if list that is 99% comprised of a single unit, that unit is almost by definition, balanced for its point cost.

Now it would be difficult to balance something that was like: you steal first turn on a 2+ roll instead of a 6+ roll AND at the start of every turn, on a 2+ roll you win. It would essentially be close to infinite points.

I think, ehlijen, you're mentally limiting yourself to games of 40k under 2.5k points. The more ridiculous you get, the more points it can be. Hell, a unit with 10 Str D 12" blast shots that never scatter CAN be balanced with an appropriate amount of points... like 15k-20k or so.

I can't think of a single example in 40k or Apocalypse that can't be balanced with a point readjustment.

Axeman1n
13-12-2011, 03:22
Eldrad is not Overpowered, he is under costed. He has nothing that is different from a normal Farseer, though the power weapon is quite nice, it's far from overpowered.
The vindicare is overpowered against any unit that has upgrade characters which affect the whole squad. Orkz, Necrons, BA to name a few.
The Manticore is as over powered as Ork Lootas. When you roll a 3, you get way more bang for your buck.

I agree with your definitions, I just don't agree with all of your examples.
The Doom of the Malantai, Fateweaver, Tally Man, Lash of Submission, Jaws of the World Wolf are all overpowered.
Marbo, Vendettas, Obliterators, Disruption Pods, The Red Thirst, are all undercosted.

I guess my idea is that things that are overpowered cannot be handled by lists as built. I cannot create a strategy to fight them after my list is built. I have to counter them with my list. Undercosted items are those things that cause my countermeasures to be very expensive.

Lord Inquisitor
13-12-2011, 03:29
I would argue that what some of you are calling "overpowered" is actually "unbalanced". Something that is hard to balance because its disproportionately useful against a subset of enemies, for example.

Underpointed just means too cheap and this is pretty much synonymous with overpowered, because almost anything no matter how situationally powerful can be rendered non-competitive (if not balanced) with sufficient price hike. However "underpointed" tends to be applied to cheap things that are too cheap and "overpowered" to anything that's very powerful yet too points effective. Often this becomes particularly obvious when spammed and the synergy of multiples of this given unit or with other units can lead to it being overpowered even if it isn't underpointed individually.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 03:30
Eldrad is not Overpowered, he is under costed. He has nothing that is different from a normal Farseer, though the power weapon is quite nice, it's far from overpowered.
The vindicare is overpowered against any unit that has upgrade characters which affect the whole squad. Orkz, Necrons, BA to name a few.
The Manticore is as over powered as Ork Lootas. When you roll a 3, you get way more bang for your buck.

I agree with your definitions, I just don't agree with all of your examples.
The Doom of the Malantai, Fateweaver, Tally Man, Lash of Submission, Jaws of the World Wolf are all overpowered.
Marbo, Vendettas, Obliterators, Disruption Pods, The Red Thirst, are all undercosted.

I guess my idea is that things that are overpowered cannot be handled by lists as built. I cannot create a strategy to fight them after my list is built. I have to counter them with my list. Undercosted items are those things that cause my countermeasures to be very expensive.

Wait, so you're saying that unless you tailor your list specifically to beat someone, you automatically lose to anyone who takes doom, jaws, lash, fateweaver, or tallyman?

Most people don't think of jaws or lash when their entire army starts off the game immune to both.

ForgottenLore
13-12-2011, 03:54
I would argue that what some of you are calling "overpowered" is actually "unbalanced".
I would argue that what some are calling overpowered is actually just bad design.

Power is a measure relative to the other things in the game. Points are a mechanical way of ensuring that things that are more powerful than other things in the game are encountered less often. Points exist to handicap units in the game based on their power level.

I agree with Sekhmet, anything can be balanced against other stuff, the problem is that some stuff is just designed badly.

Chapters Unwritten
13-12-2011, 04:39
To me it is synonymous with fiction.

After all, all I hear are complaints about the crazy powers and abilities of each army. Once they are all updated, they will ALL have such crazy powers...so I don't really believe in "overpowered" so much as I believe in "impatient players who want something to complain about even though they know it is actively being worked on and just takes time." 40k players wear double standards like a Space Wolf wears wolf tails; I watch people do it constantly on these and other boards. Really sick of it, honestly.

I have seen GW put out product two years ahead of it's "prime time" in terms of value; the idea that they don't plan ahead at all is ridiculous. Stuff that seems off-balance now, is merely set up for changes next edition. The transition from 4th to 5th took the super strong armies and made them manageable, while taking the utterly worthless armies and making them more viable; I have no doubt the same will happen in 6th. As such, I don't consider anything overpowered; I just consider people overwhelmingly unable to accept the long-term of this game's development.

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 05:12
To me it is synonymous with fiction.

After all, all I hear are complaints about the crazy powers and abilities of each army. Once they are all updated, they will ALL have such crazy powers...so I don't really believe in "overpowered" so much as I believe in "impatient players who want something to complain about even though they know it is actively being worked on and just takes time." 40k players wear double standards like a Space Wolf wears wolf tails; I watch people do it constantly on these and other boards. Really sick of it, honestly.

I have seen GW put out product two years ahead of it's "prime time" in terms of value; the idea that they don't plan ahead at all is ridiculous. Stuff that seems off-balance now, is merely set up for changes next edition. The transition from 4th to 5th took the super strong armies and made them manageable, while taking the utterly worthless armies and making them more viable; I have no doubt the same will happen in 6th. As such, I don't consider anything overpowered; I just consider people overwhelmingly unable to accept the long-term of this game's development.
You're assuming there's an end state where every army will be updated in a given edition. That hasn't happened since 3rd edition. I mean the last 3rd edition book was JUST updated to 5th and we're almost into 6th, with a bunch of 4th edition books still around (Eldar, Chaos, Dark Angels, Black Templar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Tau, and Sisters need a real codex).

A state of overpoweredness does indeed exist in a given moment in time regarding the core rules and other books, but just because it changes every few years doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's true that Eldar, Chaos, DA, BT, CD, Orks, Tau and SoB could so totally eclipse GK, IG, SW, and BA in power that they're never again seen in tournaments until those codexes get updates, but that doesn't invalidate the point that at this very moment, there are many units that are overpowered/undercosted.

Chem-Dog
13-12-2011, 07:20
You're assuming there's an end state where every army will be updated in a given edition. That hasn't happened since 3rd edition. I mean the last 3rd edition book was JUST updated to 5th and we're almost into 6th, with a bunch of 4th edition books still around (Eldar, Chaos, Dark Angels, Black Templar, Chaos Daemons, Orks, Tau, and Sisters need a real codex).

Since towards the end of 3rd Ed though, Codexes produced towards the end of an edition's run were built with the new rules in mind. Daemons, for example, was really an early 5th edition Codex even though it was released during 4th's cycle. I see no reason that DarkEldar onwards (or at least from Necrons onwards) can't be realistically be considered as the first in the line for 6th Ed (there's a couple of things specifically than make me think this is specifically true of Necrons).


Anyway, back on to the OP's question.
To me "Overpowered" is simply something that, in it's current state, is TOO POWERFUL. Most cases it's things that can be taken in abundance and aren't easily countered.
In an ideal state of play everything in an enemy's force should have something that can feasably expect to somehow neutralise the threat.

I suppose the easiest example is the dreaded "Mech list", whichever army it belongs to basically runs on one simple premise, 70-80% of the weapons the enemy models are carrying cannot hurt them leaving the Mech list relatively free to target the other 20-30% as a priority.

Otherwise I'm inclined to agree with Ehlijen generally with his evaluation of the concepts of undercosted and overpowered.

Elenneth89
13-12-2011, 07:24
i would like to say everything like GK, but it would seem a little redundant, so i`ll say shiny-silvery-marines

Axeman1n
13-12-2011, 07:27
What I'm saying is for my Foot IG, I get torn apart by Blast Masters and Lash of Submission. I admit that is't situational. I also admit that it's not that common for each overpowered peice of equipment/ power. If I take a completely biker nob list, and my opponent has a bunch of rune priests with JotWW, I'm done. There is nothing I can do about it. A Daemon army going up against a Warp Quake/ Purifier spam army will get destroyed. It makes the game unfun.
I guess what I mean is that overpowered equipment steals the fun, where as playing against an undercosted list just feels like an uphill fight. Uphill can be fun.

Sami
13-12-2011, 07:52
Death cult assassins, psyflemen, psybacks, strike squads, and purifiers, just from the GK codex.

Strike Squads and Purifiers die to shooting like every other marine out there, and the firepower they can put out is limited to 24". The fact that Purifiers can be taken as troops is slightly broken against horde CC armies but that's due to their special power. Vs any other army or against shooting in general you should be laughing.

No experience facing DCAs (again, I just shoot them). Psyflemen are annoying, but (for me) only when your opponent takes 6 of the damn things.

In fact, most if not all issues with the GK codex come from having FOC-switching special chars and Dreads/Ven Dreads (which are pretty much the same unit) in different sections. The standard GK book with no FOC swapping is pretty balanced (and you can take 6 Psyflemen if you want but your troops is going to be gutted due to the cost of Strike Squads). It's only Crowe and Corteaz that break them against some armies.

The joys of playing DE - small elite armies generally aren't much of an issue, especially when they have such limited shooting range (yes Psyflemen and Psybacks are the exception).

orkmiester
13-12-2011, 10:09
Strike Squads and Purifiers die to shooting like every other marine out there, and the firepower they can put out is limited to 24". The fact that Purifiers can be taken as troops is slightly broken against horde CC armies but that's due to their special power. Vs any other army or against shooting in general you should be laughing.

exactly... though that dosen't stop folks going 'bugger Grey Kinghts' and seeming to lose their skill which you were expecting to face:rolleyes:

though i agree with the definitions, we must not fall into looking at individual units etc out of the context of an army list which is where the problem lies.

i'm not a fan of MSU armies, i don't mind 'a few' small units but entire armies of them:rolleyes::mad: i totally understand where the idea comes from but that is 'overpowered' in some cases- seeing a BA las/plasma back list, showed the inherent madness in the system such things should be 'sorted out' or nerfed...

on GK and SW though they 'are' broken when looked at in the 'competitive' arena i find (perhaps becasue i just did things for fun:cool:) in 'general' gaming they don't casue too many problems.

GK are in an 'iffy' position at best currently anyway- nerf them too hard then they will be taken too far to the 'useless' side in the current environment, i agree purifier spam needs the nerf bat swinging at it as well as psybolt ammo, at least they should have made it a psychic power. That way said squad can't then use its other powers, or made it cost a lot more. In most other instances half the gear they are eqquiped with isn't used anyway:eyebrows:. Though they do fit in well with the mech armies that are common these days- they undoubtedly have the stuff to bust transports etc, but of course that is not what in 'fluff' terms they were designed for:shifty:

i'll just say the GK part above is my view call me a moderate if you will:angel::wtf:


other than that vendettas are a big gripe, they are OP for what they cost. Though things change through the editions- nob bikers used to be OP but now? hmmm not really we all have enough firepower to splat them or the CC power to paste them...

just my humble opinion

tu33y
13-12-2011, 11:24
for me, it is something that goes directly against one of the core game rules.

for example, leman russes being able to fire an ordanance weapon and other weapons (even though that makes sort of sense), vehicles ignoring Metla or lance rules, things not scattering on deep strike, machine spirit being BS4... eternal warrior, the entire Blood Angels codex, long fangs, you know, that stuff.

for me, its nothing to do with points. its the extra, crazy, one upmanship special army specific rules. which IMHO are sometimes juvenile and even "silly"

Bunnahabhain
13-12-2011, 12:34
Overpowered, to my mind, must tick some of these points. The more it collects, the worse it is. My sense of 'That isn't right' doesn't seem to kick in until a unit gets two of these solidly, or a half marks in 3+

-Too cheap for what it does- vendetta

-Wrong FOC slot If via FOC swaps or not. Mainly as it makes things too spammable.

-Doesn't follow how a unit like that normally behaves Vendetta not losing transport space

- Ignores core mechanics Jaws of the world wolf and other remove from play stuff. Half marks if available via another unit, i.e drop pods virtually ignoring scatter

-Confers a major bonus over a large area Typically huge USR bubbles

-Is a Psyker until the powers are reigned in, or some psychic defences are available all round. You play Orks, Tau, Guard, etc? sorry psykers have free reign over you simply isn't good enough

-Abuses wound allocation

- Has no real counter short of killing the thing Half marks if some armies have counters, but many don't

So, for example, I find Psyriflermen a pain, as they're far too cheap ( with the ammo) and fortitude allows them to effectively ignore a core game mechanic.

Some mainly Guard examples, as I know them best...

Manticores are fine. They're powerful, but in the right place, in the right army, costed about right, and they don't do anything weird.

Chimeras are simply undercosted. 60-65 pts each, and the complaints would be far less common. They don't break any of the other guidelines though

Vendettas are broken. The mix of FOC slot, squadrons, and not giving up any transport capacity is just not right. Fix some of those, and make the points cost more sensible (150-160).

Mambo is OK. Costed about right, and in the right place. He's also very hit or miss. He is a perfect example of the thing you can't do anything about though, and his deployment pushes hard on the 'ignoring game mechanics' one.

The Doom WAS awful, as it was hugely powerful, unstoppable, and ignored core mechanics with no counter for several turns. The FAQ allowing cover saves made it obey a core rule, so bringing it down to reasonableness

Askari
13-12-2011, 12:59
Similar to Bunna, I have a couple of criteria;

Breaks core rules - Jaws being a particular problem here, ignores the shooting rules and arbitrarily circumvents immunity to Instant Death also. Exceptions to exceptions to exceptions, drives me nuts.

Uncounterable (if even only for some armies) - This is a problem with writing the books in slow process, but the lack of psychic defence in some armies is what makes Grey Knights seem so over the top, if they get less than half of them off, rather than 11/12 like they do now, they'd be toned down quite a bit

Aura Effects - Auras are near impossible to cost appropriately, as their effects increase dramatically with the number of units that can benefit. I'd restrict them to boon one unit, or the unit the aura-bearer is in, only. Then cost them accordingly.

3 0f 6
13-12-2011, 13:02
I would use "overpowered" in a specific context such as "The smell overpowered me" or "My arm wrestling opponent overpowered me"

Okuto
13-12-2011, 14:20
To me something overpowered basically take advantage of a base rule or rather overrules something from the main rule book entirely.....

Basically stuff that refuses you any sort of save is my first choice of overpowered....ala jaws

GK stuff is just undercosted and short sighted

Sekhmet
13-12-2011, 14:36
What I'm saying is for my Foot IG, I get torn apart by Blast Masters and Lash of Submission. I admit that is't situational. I also admit that it's not that common for each overpowered peice of equipment/ power. If I take a completely biker nob list, and my opponent has a bunch of rune priests with JotWW, I'm done. There is nothing I can do about it. A Daemon army going up against a Warp Quake/ Purifier spam army will get destroyed. It makes the game unfun.
I guess what I mean is that overpowered equipment steals the fun, where as playing against an undercosted list just feels like an uphill fight. Uphill can be fun.

I see that more as you making an unbalanced list and being punished for it rather than overpowered abilities, except the warp quake thing which is another stupid GK ability.

You're basically playing rock paper scissors when you go all infantry or all nob bikers and complaining when your rock loses to paper.

Konovalev
13-12-2011, 14:58
To me overpowered means something is out of place, above and beyond all others things which it seeks to associate itself with. For example using a tower shield in a fencing match. Wearing a suit of plate armor in a boxing match. Dropping caltrops in a nascar race etc.

I don't feel there is anything currently overpowered in 40k though, I do however recognize that there are scenarios many people do not know how to overcome.

Denny
13-12-2011, 21:49
I agree with Sekhmet; overpowered and undercosted are, to me, the same thing.

If something is too powerful for its cost: overpowered.
If something is too cheap for its power level: undercosted.

However the value of anything is dependent on its opposition.

its environment. Dark Lances are slightly undercosted in an all armour 14 environment, but slightly overcosted if faced with armour 12 spam.

Is a Dark Lance the right price?
Probably . . . but it won't feel that way to someone playing a Blood Angels Land Raider Spam list . . .

Nurgling Chieftain
13-12-2011, 22:23
We're basically talking semantics, here. Underpriced is the key determinate, as far as I'm concerned, as there is virtually no power so broken that it can't be priced out of usefulness ("Your I-win power costs ∞!").

That being said, IMO there still exist powers that simply shouldn't be in the game. My biggest pet peeves are infinite recursion effects (e.g. blood talons) and tiny-yet-infinite-radius effects (e.g. red grail, kustom force field).

ashc
13-12-2011, 22:37
We're basically talking semantics, here. Underpriced is the key determinate, as far as I'm concerned, as there is virtually no power so broken that it can't be priced out of usefulness ("Your I-win power costs ∞!").

That being said, IMO there still exist powers that simply shouldn't be in the game. My biggest pet peeves are infinite recursion effects (e.g. blood talons) and tiny-yet-infinite-radius effects (e.g. red grail, kustom force field).

This is probably closest to my thoughts on it. Some rules are just so screwy, you wonder why they bothered.

Kozbot
14-12-2011, 06:56
It is important to note that some abilities are extremely difficult to point cost correctly. A model that killed all models it can draw LOS to but is toughness 1 with no saves would be extremely difficult to point cost properly. You see this a lot in codex designs as units go from 'must have' to 'never take' due to shifts in points. And while my example seems extreme Eldar War Walkers suffer from this, they are extremely fragile, yet can lay down an incredible amount of fire power, it becomes even more difficult to consider points costs when one considers buffing abilities like guide.

Guide can be useful when cast on a squad of guardians to help them whittle down an orc mob. Or game winning when it twin links war walkers sporting brightlances and missile launchers that annhilate a squadron of russes. I think this is why there is some differentiation made between overpowered and undercosted.

Undercosted units/abilities/wargear, just need their points costs increased and they'd remain useful and viable choices but not the must have spam choice. Overpowered indicates something that, if enough points were charged for it to properly take into account its usefulness and abilities it would become so expensive no one would ever take it. And yes, making something cost infinite points would be proof that it's overpowered, as the point cost needed to properly take into account its abilities is so high that it can literally never be taken, meaning that the power is too high to put a point cost on.

Friedrich von Offenbach
14-12-2011, 13:12
I believe overpowered is having no weaknesses. Something S10 but T1 is fine, but when that thing suddenly can only be killed by a las pistol, wielded by a chaos terminator, only on a tuesday and if its raining outside - then it is overpowered.
As long as their is a weakness, even if its just that the thing costs 1000 point (ie expensive), then i would consider it fair and not overpowered

Vipoid
14-12-2011, 13:59
I see overpowered as being basically the same as undercosted, and tend to use them interchangeably. Generally, you could look at an (overly) strong model as being either overpowered or undercosted.

The only exception I'd make (that I can think of offhand) is when an ability clearly wasn't thought through (such as the Purifier ability not only to maim hordes and GEQs, but to do so at I11). In this sort of case, I'd say the ability (/wargear/weapon) should be toned down, rather than the cost of the model going up.

boogaloo
14-12-2011, 17:54
I would say that it would be a power difference that removes greater than 25% of the strategy from the game. I think up until that point it`s really more of a characterful handicap.

Like take a Wraithwall against Tau or Dark Eldar. They can just field too much weaponry to deal with high strength targets, and stay out of our meager 12" threat range. I certainly wouldn`t call Tau overpowered, but I played 2 20 minute games against my friends tau and I don`t think I`ll be repeating the experiment. Just no fun.

Warpcrafter
14-12-2011, 18:02
For me it's simple. An army is overpowered when I take my best list against it and roll considerably better than the statistical average and still damn near get tabled. IG armies that are nothing but squadrons of tanks and a couple of vet squads in Valkyries that sit at the table edge until it's time to snatch objectives, all-deep striking Blood Angels, any Grey Knights.

Nurgling Chieftain
14-12-2011, 18:32
...take a Wraithwall...Well, there's your first mistake. :p If wraithguard are the standard, most things become undercosted.

Daemonia
14-12-2011, 18:35
Buff rock. Nerf paper. Scissors are fine.
-Rock player

Aluinn
14-12-2011, 20:32
I see that more as you making an unbalanced list and being punished for it rather than overpowered abilities, except the warp quake thing which is another stupid GK ability.

You're basically playing rock paper scissors when you go all infantry or all nob bikers and complaining when your rock loses to paper.

How should pure infantry be more "rock/paper/scissors" than completely mechanized armies, though, in an ideal environment? They're both presented in the codexes as valid options, yet there's really nothing in the game that truly punishes (i.e. hands them their butts almost without exception) pure mech armies right now, whereas many, many things punish footslogging, up to and including core game mechanics.

And if you dispute this, answer me this: When you see a mech army lose a game, is your response ever: "You chose an unbalanced army, so that's just what you get"? Probably not, because mech does not pay for being unbalanced in composition. If that's the case, either: A) It should pay for being unbalanced, therefore is overpowered in that it does not; or B) Pure infantry armies should also not be at a disadvantage as a result of their composition.

Pure mech is theoretically meant to be countered by armies that load up on anti-tank weapons, but that is obviously not the case right now, else a pure footslogging army with maxed-out anti-tank weapons should be the perfect solution to a mechanized meta, yet it is not and in fact isn't even a very competitive tournament army in most cases.

So, yeah, transport vehicles are overpowered and/or undercosted depending on how you define those terms, and dismounted infantry are underpowered.

BrainFireBob
14-12-2011, 20:54
Under pointed is the same thing as over powered to me.

Units that get special abilities or wargear for "free" or at significantly reduced cost to what other older books pay for them are "over powered" in the fact that they can field a larger or more powerful army for the same point cost.

This throws the entire basis of the game out of whack since you play armies against each other based on a specific points cost. This means by spamming under costed units some armies are in effect fielding armies larger than their opponent.

This means that certain older codexes are playing at a significant disadvantage to the newer ones.


Disagree in detail. The "points balance everything" school of thought needs to look at something like virus outbreak from 2nd.

It wipes out an opposing army, or it doesn't.

That's OP, even if it doesn't always go off, regardless of how much it costs.

The old Armored Company list was that way. I was in a tournament where the list was authorized by the organizer; and he went up against Sisters at the time- a wall of AV 14 facing 1 Exorcist and 4 troop-portable meltaguns. Incidentally, the Sisters player went 2nd, and by his turn, had exactly one meltagun.

That was an OP list for general use- hence why it required permission. Could it be beaten? Sure, if it was explicitly designed for- and that's my basis for overpowered. A single unit or ability so overwhelmingly powerful that not tailoring my army around facing it means I am playing at a severe handicap if entering into a blind opponent draw setting.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 20:57
Seems to me these are "unbalanced" rather than "overpowered" - they're not necessarily overpowered against all armies, but they're horrifically unbalanced in a rock-paper-scissors sort of way.

Semantics, I guess but as I was saying in the first page, it helps if we're all talking about the same thing.

BrainFireBob
14-12-2011, 20:58
So are you saying that a vindicare assassin that cost 500 pts but is otherwise exactly the same would be overpowered? Or how about if manticores were 750 pts each? Wouldn't they be so ridiculously underpowered at that point cost that no one would take them?

He would be, he'd just be a far riskier investment. Points is only one aspect of being overpowered.

And no, someone would take them. That's the point.

To borrow from another old nerd classic, points-costing is similar to availability or count limitations in Magic. Eventually, they realized that restricting certain cards, starting, as I recall, with the Black Lotus, to 0-1 wasn't restrictive enough; the ability was too effective at any price.

BrainFireBob
14-12-2011, 21:03
Seems to me these are "unbalanced" rather than "overpowered" - they're not necessarily overpowered against all armies, but they're horrifically unbalanced in a rock-paper-scissors sort of way.

Semantics, I guess but as I was saying in the first page, it helps if we're all talking about the same thing.

Questions of degree. Some things are only overpowered due to their cost making them unbalanced- they can be taken with no appreciable investment, allowing the bulk of the points to be spent towards something that covers the remaining 5% of situations. The old donkey cannon list was that way.

Right now I don't think there's too much overpowered in 40K- I still think Lash is in function, and I rather consider Hammerhand stacking OP, but that's due to the values of the To Wound chart. I'm rather undecided on the command barge with Ardrazyn in it- Warscythe drive-bys, makes you tanks hose you, reasonably tough unit. JotWW allowing sniping is, but I don't have an issue with the power otherwise. The sniping's OP, because the game isn't designed to work with that kind of sniping.

ForgottenLore
14-12-2011, 22:47
It wipes out an opposing army, or it doesn't.

That's OP, even if it doesn't always go off, regardless of how much it costs.
No, that is simply bad design.

Something can be a horribly bad, unfun, rule without necessarily being overpowered.

Lord Inquisitor
14-12-2011, 22:59
That depends on your definition of "overpowered" again (going back to your original reply).

There's no doubt that it's bad design but there are many aspects of bad design. Even completely balanced system can be badly designed if it is clunky or overcomplicated or unrealistic or whatnot. "Overpowered" elements is one, specific, aspect of "bad design".

"Unbalanced" typically means something that isn't balanced well or cannot be balanced. Something like the Virus Grenade is unbalanced because it has a disproportionate effect on some armies. It's overpowered against some armies and underpowered against others. Now there are many, many things that are like this and it only really becomes a major issue when it is taken to extremes.

Cry of the Wind
14-12-2011, 23:22
I go with the rock-paper-scissors view of unbalanced/overpowered. If I put models on the table and have almost no chance of winning it is more likely because of bad match ups in wargear. Some items will cripple one race but not another so it is hard to balance them with point costs. Anything that is just good for its points isn't a huge problem for me as it could be adjusted, things that I can't get around no matter what I include in my force are the real problem for the game. I haven't encountered any yet but I'm an Imperial player so have more options overall.