Overcosted Units

[DarrinTheOccult]

Do you think GW will update those overcosted units like all that Tzeentch stuff (flamers, screamers, etc) in the new General's Handbook? 

I hope so, armies would be more varied 

[KnightFire]

I think there will be some points changes, but it will be a combination of things going up and down (which is right). Its fine for some things not to be perfectly costed (especially things you can summon like flamers and screamers) as long as there are circumstances that mean its worth summoning them. 

For non-summonable units, I would like to see quite a few changes, just to shake everything up and make people re-adjust to a completely new metagame, rather than just tweaking it around the edges, but thats just me.

[Rhellion]

36 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Time will tell.  The undercosted stuff needs seriously addressed as well.  This first draft of GHB points was a fail IMO.  

There have always been overcosted and undercosted units in every game system with points.

The fact that they are addressing and trying to rebalance with a new version of the GHB says it is a successful idea, not a failure. Because they are listening and willing to adjust.

[AlexHarrison]

Kurnoth Hunters and Skyfires are overcosted! Please GW reduce their cost, sincerly, no one.

[Soulsmith]

I just want to see a drop on Acolytes. They are a super cool unit, but near useless for their price.

[Freddy25]

Yes, I think GW will change some points value for a certain amount of units... or at least I hope so!

It would be nice not only to see overcosted units being made more available, but also to see some increase for the prices of all those units which ANYONE fields.

Ex. I'm a Seraphon enthusiast, and (speaking of my faction) this is what I hope to see in the GH2.0:

- increase the costs of Bastiladons with Solar Engine OR nerf it a bit

- increase the cost of Ethernal Starhosts (the Temple Guards' formation),

- increase the cost of Chameleon Skinks OR nerf their ability to "teleport"

- lower the cost of Slann Starmasters

- lower the cost of Troglodons

That's because as points are now the latter two units are too much overpriced, while the first three are cheap seeing how they perform on the battlefield... so basically almost every Seraphon army list I see gravitates around them.
 

An update to some units costs would only benefit the meta and could grant a bit more of variety on the battlefield.

 

[Miller]

Hopefully all cavalry get cheaper! 

[someone2040]

I think we'll see some overpriced units be bought down in cost, but I think we'll have to wait for the Generals Handbook v2 to see how widespread points adjustments are.

 

I think it'd be interesting to hear more about the play-testing process this time around and how it differs. I think for GHBv1, it was more about setting the framework for matched play (And other styles of course). You got your allegiance abilities, command traits and magic items. The 6 matched play scenarios. Of course we got points, but I think it was more about putting that infrastructure in place.

Now 1 year on in Age of Sigmars lifecycle, the framework exists, so naturally it should be more about balancing the game. There's almost a years worth of data of games and feedback from around the world. Obviously they had some data beforehand (based on independent points systems), but this will be data based on their own.

So it'd be interesting to hear closer to the date (I'm sure it'll happen) from those involved about how it differed. Were they sat in a room and went through all the units one by one and what they thought about them. Did they build power-armies for each faction or commonly grouped factions and play some games. Do they have a set of lists where they go "We'd like all lists to be around this power level".

So looking forwards to *hopefully* a future Heelanhammer or Baddice on exactly that

[RuneBrush]

I think pointage is going to be something that is constantly tweaked based on the armies people are fielding and where the current power-base in the game currently is.  What is an appropriate point cost now, may not be after six months of releases and people modifying lists based on the latest points.

What points should be is always going to be subjective and bias towards a players list and playstyle.  As a Bloodbound player I thing all shooting and magic units should be at least +50% and the Balewind at least 240!  OK, I'm not being serious, but it just proves that "balancing" points isn't as simple as listening to the communities opinion.  GW want to see really diverse armies being put on the table, so if they feel a unit is underrepresented in games, one solution is to drop the points to encourage more people to field it - and visa versa.  Nothing to do with it's effectiveness.  They did this for Fyreslayers with the SCGT trial points.

I'm really looking forward to the new handbook, I think we're in for some real surprises

[KnightFire]

14 hours ago, Auticus said:

Thats why I said this first draft was a fail.  If the next version is a lot closer then great.  If the next version fixes the first version and then has equally obvious broken units (both under and over costed) then they need to get some people that understand math a little better.  Again IMO.

Out of interest - what is the maths for calculating the cost of a unit? 

Its really not simple, how good a unit is depends on many factors, such as what other units it is fielded with, how it behaves in scenarios, and what other units it is likely to encounter on the battlefield.  The value of a unit may change with future releases that combo with it, counter it, or otherwise affect its gameplay.

It isn't a situation where there is a nice formula you can just put the units into to get the right answers before anyone has used them much, and that GW is just doing it wrong. The fact that GW have said its a process that will be ongoing and will never end is the correct answer, its not a process where they will end up with the "right" points for skyfires and they will never change, the points of all units will need to go up and down over the years as other things change around them.

[rokapoke]

9 minutes ago, KnightFire said:

Out of interest - what is the maths for calculating the cost of a unit? 

Please, let's not go down that rabbit hole. There are people out there that say that's easy to determine, and it gets ugly. Let's stay out of the whole math argument regarding points!

[KnightFire]

8 minutes ago, Auticus said:

 

The azyr comp formula put skyfires up 20% in cost for example.  That makes a huge difference in a 2000 point game because you can't take as many and we have seen how broken they are because they are 20% undercost.  

 

What is the maths at which you arrived at 20% as the amount they are undercosted by?

 

[KnightFire]

I agree about them being undercosted, but am just interested at how you came out with 20%, and how you calculate average wound output and defense scores, in particular, do you assume that the kernoth hunters have planted their roots in the defense scores, or that they have used damned terrain in the offense scores? What armour value are you assuming their opponents have (and therefore how relevant rend and multiple wounds are), and how are you accounting for battleshock in the defensive scores?

 

The points in the GHB and at release are in fact calculated using a forumula similar to the one you describe. GW HQ employees have told me there is a massive spreadsheet that the rules team use to calculate points, based on wound output etc, but they say that is precisely why they get it wrong sometimes, because the spreadsheet doesn't take into account things like the fact you can do a damned terrain with kernoth hunters and then immediately heal the wounds back, etc. 

The current approach is therefore that they calculate what they think the points should be based on a formula, adjust it following playtesting, then adjust again after release if they got it significantly wrong. That seems like a good approach to me. If others have a formula that works better than that used by GW, please share it and I am sure they will take it into account.

 

[KnightFire]

3 minutes ago, Auticus said:

 

Also things like skeletons.  Where they get better the bigger they are, they c hose to not make you pay extra for that ability.  Therefore when you take a unit of 30 skeletons, but are paying the same as 10 skeletons, you are getting a huge discount.

Now take a bunch of units of 30 skeletons and your entire list is at a steep discount.

 

Skyfires I agree with, and we know they are going up in points.

Skeletons though I don't, for a number of reasons. Firstly, while they do get better when you add more of them, thats kind of the point. Skeletons are meant to be a numerous enemy, in 8th I used to run multiple units of 50 in a VC army, together with 150 zombies and 30 ghouls, so dont think of it as getting better the more you add, but worse the more that die. Secondly, there is an inherent disadvantage in having large units of things like skeletons, in that things that are good against 10 skeletons are very good against 30, you are losing list diversity for the sake of specific efficiency, which is how listbuilding should be. The final and most telling point is that you don't see large hoards of skeletons rocking the top tables at tournaments, if they were undercosted in big blocks you would see them (like you do kernoth hunters and skyfires and stonehorns and kunnin rukk)

[KnightFire]

33 minutes ago, Auticus said:

Thats not balance though.

If I have a model: X.  And X is 4+ hit, 4+ to wound, 4+ save, 1 attack (for sake of argument), then he should cost like he does 4+ hit, 4+ to wound, 4+ save, 1 attack.

If I have another model that is 4+ hit, 4+ to wound, 4+ save, 3 attacks, then I would expect that model to cost more yes?

What about a model that is 2+ to hit, 4+ to wound, 4+ save, 1 attack.  Should that model not cost more?

But with skeletons that all is counted the same.  Even though something in Army B may have a 2+ to hit model that is costed more.  That is unacceptable to me. 

While you don't see them rocking tournaments because their cost / efficiency score is NOT ACCEPTABLE ENOUGH, that does not indicate that they are balanced.  Take a list loaded down with hordes of skeletons against a casual list, and in my experience the casual list gets splattered pretty much every time.

Tournaments are a highlight of the MOST efficient units, not every efficient unit in the game.  

Skyfires and Kunnin Rukk operate at many times their points level, where as hordes of 30 skeletons only operate at a few levels above their points cost.

They are both operating above their points cost and thus imbalanced, but you won't see the "few levels above" at a tournament because thats not extreme.

So I don't agree with your starting premise that the model with 3 attacks should necessarily cost more, as models cant be reduced to just those simple stats, they have a whole load of special rules that affect how and when they do things that come into play. The model that has 3 attacks might do mortal wounds to itself on 1s to hit, or the model with one attack might have rend -2. You seem to be working on the premise that there is a perfect balance that can be found, and that would be true if there were no factors involved other than pure hit, wound and save rolls, but that just isn't the case.

I also really think that my point about magnification of weaknesses needs to be taken into account, its a fairly key part of game design, and it still holds true here as long as things are appropriately costed. Skeleton warriors are, they operate at about the right level, i'm not sure what your idea of a casual army is that loses to a large horde of skeleton warriors, but I can't think of many that would. Most light infantry in the game operate on the principal that they are good when you have lots of them, and get worse as they go down in number, so pretty much any army that has access to light infantry has similar options, and elite infantry (or even cavalry or monster armies) aren't really going to struggle against 40 skeletons any more than they do against 10.

I think getting stuck on the idea that somehow hoard infantry being good in hoards should cost more is missing a core tenent of hoard infantry (that they are only good in hoards, and the way that you beat that is to just start killing them), and a core design principal of the game. I doubt very much that its going to change (because its obviously a core design principal, and has no downsides). 

 

 

[KnightFire]

Out of interest, what kind of casual lists are these? Can you give an example of a list that was killed by 3 blocks of 30 skeletons where it was down to a list mismatch rather than player ability?

 

Most of my armies are what I would consider casual (non top table) lists, I dont think any of them would struggle with an army that was mostly blocks of 30 skeletons (especially as they get notably weaker if you take 1 off each unit). My armies would include:

MSU stormcast: 5 judicators x3, 5 liberators x2, 6 prosecutors, 5 retributors x2, lord celestant on dracoth, lord celestant on foot, lord castellant, knight azyros

Ironjawz: Mawcrusha, Megaboss on foot, War chanter, shaman, 10 brutes, 5 brutes, 5 brutes, 10 aardboys, 3 gore gruntas, ironfist

Tzeentch: 20 acolytes x2, 10 pink horrors, 6 enlightened, 3 enlightened, 3 enlightened, fatemaster, tzaangor shaman x3, witchfyre coven, arcanite cabal

Sylvaneth: 2x treelord, 10 dryads x4, 3 kernoth hunters with scythes, 3 kernoth hunters with bows, branchwytch, branchwraith. 

None of these are tournament lists, but I would be very happy if I saw my opponent putting 3 blocks of 30 skeletons down on the table. 

 

[Killax]

To me it's very difficult to point out the overcosted units. By comparison I feel we have some undercosted units and a lot of well costed units.

19 hours ago, Soulsmith said:

I just want to see a drop on Acolytes. They are a super cool unit, but near useless for their price.

Are they too useless by themselves within Army Alliance context or by Skyfire comparison?

I mean that in many cases I think players thake the Tzeentch Fate Dice for granted, it's likely one of the best abilities in the game, which logically should reflect in units aswell? 

 

[KnightFire]

18 minutes ago, Killax said:

To me it's very difficult to point out the overcosted units. By comparison I feel we have some undercosted units and a lot of well costed units.

Are they too useless by themselves within Army Alliance context or by Skyfire comparison?

I mean that in many cases I think players thake the Tzeentch Fate Dice for granted, it's likely one of the best abilities in the game, which logically should reflect in units aswell? 

 

I think its a bit early to say, but I have 2 units of 20 and do find them quite underwhelming for the points, even with the witchfyre coven to make them shoot twice. I'm not sure what you would use destiny dice for with acolytes, you have at least 10 of them, and don't really want them in combat so aren't using the dice for charge rolls, they have a weak shooting attack so even if you used the destiny dice for that it would make let you force two wounds through from the unit. 

Pink horrors, for the same points, have a better shooting attack, better combat attack, better save, better bravery, and can cast spells (which would be a useful thing to use destiny dice for).

Bloodreavers, which are probably the nearest comparison unit, cost 40 points less for 10. The reavers don't have a shooting attack, but get 2 attacks each when near the totem, with better hit and wounds scores.

 

Still its really hard to tell, because im not that great a player, so its hard to know how other players would do with my list (if they werent using skyfires).

[AverageBoss]

DoT has some really wonky internal balance.

All the non-character, non-horror daemons are overpriced. Acolytes are pretty bad. Fatemaster is abysmal. Tzaangors are one of those "take more and they get better" units, but they are pretty pricey off the bat. Skyfires are odd. I would actually argue that they are much closer to fair in more conservative numbers (3-6), but they snowball into an oldschool deathstar when you take a bunch of them, especially in a generic chaos army where you can buff their to-hit rolls much higher than the +1 DoT can provide. Enlightened just seem like a miss to me, I think they needed a 4+ save and their combat ability should have been swapped with the Skyfires combat ability.

[Thesockra]

I just hope they reprice almost all of the Slaanesh Daemons.  They are WAAAY overpointed.  There is no way a daemonette is 20% better than a bloodletter, yeah they get a shot at extra attacks but I would rather have mortal wounds on the same to hit roll.

[chord]

I hope they reduce the cost of the Celestant Prime.  Way too expensive, you  never see him used in tournaments. 

[Killax]

3 hours ago, KnightFire said:

I think its a bit early to say, but I have 2 units of 20 and do find them quite underwhelming for the points, even with the witchfyre coven to make them shoot twice. I'm not sure what you would use destiny dice for with acolytes, you have at least 10 of them, and don't really want them in combat so aren't using the dice for charge rolls, they have a weak shooting attack so even if you used the destiny dice for that it would make let you force two wounds through from the unit. 

Pink horrors, for the same points, have a better shooting attack, better combat attack, better save, better bravery, and can cast spells (which would be a useful thing to use destiny dice for).

Bloodreavers, which are probably the nearest comparison unit, cost 40 points less for 10. The reavers don't have a shooting attack, but get 2 attacks each when near the totem, with better hit and wounds scores.

 

Still its really hard to tell, because im not that great a player, so its hard to know how other players would do with my list (if they werent using skyfires).

I dont play them but they seem like the chaff you can control boards with. Id try for blocks of 30 and actually aim for melee. This way you can ensure Skyfires arnt reached.

Now I agree, its not ****** playing into your strengths but its also not terrible.

Much the same applies to Bloodcrushers on the BoK side. Same cost as Skullcrushers but strictly 1 attack and 1 wound less per model. Though even now they arnt drastically overcosted. Maby 10-20 points.

I see the Acolytes as a similar example. I wouldnt thake them because other choices play easier into the synergy, however, often these units also have acces to a cheaper Battalion or fit a slightly different role.

[KnightFire]

I dont play them but they seem like the chaff you can control boards with. Id try for blocks of 30 and actually aim for melee. This way you can ensure Skyfires arnt reached.
Now I agree, its not ****** playing into your strengths but its also not terrible.
Much the same applies to Bloodcrushers on the BoK side. Same cost as Skullcrushers but strictly 1 attack and 1 wound less per model. Though even now they arnt drastically overcosted. Maby 10-20 points.
I see the Acolytes as a similar example. I wouldnt thake them because other choices play easier into the synergy, however, often these units also have acces to a cheaper Battalion or fit a slightly different role.

That's a reasonable idea but I'm trying to avoid having many skyfires. My original list was pure arcanites and so I had 1w enlightened, but now I'm thinking only 6 enlightened and some tweaks elsewhere to get two loc in. That gives me the two units of arcanites shooting twice as chaff that can do some reasonable damage, and the two loc to do the damage.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Ian R]

My biggest worry on this is that GW do not do enough and/or they choose not to change very recent releases because they have not been "tested" in their view, or there is an embarrassment factor for changing points so soon after release. So Skyfires go unchanged.  Hope I am wrong. 

[Captain Marius]

Ive read a few times that Nagash and other mega heroes are overcosted. I used him for the first time in a game tonight against a Nurgle army, and between buffing the whole army (30 skellies? Pah, try 40 with spears with Vanhels Danse cast on them!) and clobbering the Glottkin in one round of combat, I feel hes about right. The Glottkin on the other hand are also quite a big investment, but not in the same league as Nagash - my opponent is desperate for them to get a Disgustingly Resilient save at least which i agree would make them feel a bit more worth their points, and more Nurgley to boot! I fought Alarielle the other week too and she seemed pretty good value - if you cant kill her before she gets a hero phase she'll heal up to full health in the blink of an eye!