Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hey guys

I usually read the forums here but until today I never signed up. Basically the reason I did is that I've recently set about trying to balance the army books out a bit as to rekindle my gaming groups love of the game. We all started about a decade ago but with the cost continually rising here in New Zealand (eg. a single box of 5 Vampire Blood Knights is $200 here or about $158USD) we have stopped buying new models. When we added to that the fact that every new book we get we always seem to ask out loud "do Games Workshop even play test these books against other armies?" which is usually answered by "dude, I wouldn't even bet on them balancing them against units within the book itself." This has led to my current project, which is to balance the army books; first against themselves (making every unit a viable unit), then against other books (making units fairly costed against similar units of other books).

I realise this is going to be a huge undertaking and will require many versions of tweaks and play testing, which is why I came here. I have often read and respected things written on this forum, that combined with the number of my fellow wargamers in one place I was wondering if I could get some help. My first step is probably the easier task; to balance the books against themselves (using a similar unit from another army book when that is difficult). This is as we often find that (regardless of army book) there are usually units which we never take, and often never see anyone ever take, usually because A) the unit is too expensive (eg. DE Harpies), B) there is an even better unit that has been under costed and is always used instead (eg. as a dwarfs player, I still think Gyrobombers are too cheap), or C) the unit could work one or two stats were slightly better (eg.Chaos Furies, with Ld 6, suddenly they don't suck as much).

So for the first part of this I would like opinions of players on the following:
1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why?
2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win with? and why?
3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced?
4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use (this doesn't even have to be a unit, maybe it's just a weapon build for a unit... eg. I never see people using DE Corsairs with repeater handbows.
5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight?
6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take)
7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies?
8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)? eg. Khorne Skull Chariot, how does it compare to a regular empire/dwarf cannon, and to a regular chariot.

I'm hoping to get alot of feedback so I can start releasing errata type updates for you guys to play test. (We'll test ourselves of course, but we think a larger test group would yield much better results, and help filter out bias)

So for the first part of this I would like opinions of players on the following:

1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why? Beastmen & Tomb Kings. Both armies have a hard time taking out armour. Both armies have lots of units over priced by a few points. Both armies are magic dependent to be competitive. Both armies lack any sort of armour what-so-ever and Both armies have big-ass monsters that are over costed. Although to be fair, Undead Legions helped balanced out Tomb Kings, but you will have your work cut out for you with Beastmen.

2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win against? and why? It's less over powered armies and more certain over powered lists. Fantasy is not like 40k, we don't have an Eldar or a Tau, we have Gutstars and BOTWD. But lists that are hard to win against in my opinion are: Wood Elf/Dark Elf avoidance shooty lists, fast cav are just so good against slow armies. Ogre Gutstar, it's almost impossible to get any meaningful victory points off of them due to it all being in a few tough units. High Elves with BOTW against Daemons is simply pointless, you will have to remake this item entirely. I've heard things about Nurlge Daemons but never faced the trouble myself.

3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced?High Elves~BOTWD, Empire, Skaven (Not internally balanced certainly, but nothing OP) and Dwarves are all balanced and reasonable armies. Dark Elves, Undead and Chaos Warriors are here as well, but some of there units are a little to powerful.

4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use (this doesn't even have to be a unit, maybe it's just a weapon build for a unit... eg. I never see people using DE Corsairs with repeater handbows. I play Wood Elves, and our magic items list is utter gak. Dryads are near useless and Wildwood rangers need tweaking to make them worthwhile. Everything else is well balanced except for the difference in magic arrows. Hagbane and Trueflight rule the roost with no competition other then each other.

5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight? Dryads lost Skirmisher and Str 4. Give them back Skirmisher and Str 4. Maybe a 5+ Scaly Skin save option for a few points a model. I'd use them then. On that note, an upgrade (Iron Bark or something?) to bring Tree Kin back to strength 5 would make them a worthwhile hammer.

6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take). Waywatchers are ace, but not over powered. Wild Riders hit like a brick on steroids but are fragile. Level 4 on horse with Sisters of the Thorn and Glade Riders. None of this is over powered in itself, but the Fast Cav rules means that either some armies can take it and some armies are chasing 18'' ghosts. That's a problem with the meta, not the rules.

7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies? Sisters of the Thorn are what Warlocks should look like. Glade Riders are what Dark Riders should look like. Wild Riders are utterly unique. I think they are well priced.

8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)? eg. Khorne Skull Chariot, how does it compare to a regular empire/dwarf cannon, and to a regular chariot. Khorne Chariot is something, but i am biased because he has flaming cannon balls and i have treemen. Warlocks are a little to powerful and someone needs to do something about that Damnable Doomwheel! Random Movement rules be crazy vs Fast Cav!

Glad i could be of some help, Alex.

Hey ALEXisAWESOME

Thanks this is very helpful, and mostly in line with other forums/threads I've read, although usually people place High Elves/Dark Elves as the most powerful/above average armies, and Wood Elves are usually below average (with the main reason they do well being points denial lists with other lists being sub par, I can't form a reliable opinion as I don't play wood elves myself) along with Brettonia. The general consensus is that Tomb Kings and Beastmen are really bad (should have probably mentioned that the rules set we are balancing is pre end times as all of our group hate the end times). For the armies that I don't play, the best I can do is research through forums and ask other players, battle reports are helpful too.

As for the trouble with getting victory points; we remember how this never really used to be an issue, and unanimously agreed to bring back the half victory points for 50% or higher casualties, some of us going so far as to suggest 25% increments for units above 10 combined wounds (mainly due to the rise in Deathstar units), although we haven't settled on anything yet. Other base rulebook rules we've discussed are bound spells, and Flying Cav. Oh and mysterious terrain.

Bound Spells: we're thinking (seeing as they have no wizard level bonus) that they should be somewhat more reliable than standard magic... our idea was to make bound spells just eat a power dice (or 2 dice if it has a PL of 7-12, 3 for 13-18, ect.) but always successfully cast. Maybe a 2d6 roll after use with a double 1 meaning it breaks for the rest of the game.

Flying Cavalry: Shared profile in the same way as monsterous cavalry, where you take the highest toughness and wounds value but otherwise being the same. Apparently, in the current rules they are treated like normal cav with the mounts stats meaning almost nothing.

Mysterious terrain: the idea that only 1 in 6 trees in the world is just a regular tree is (to us) completely ludicrous. So we usually play the following (you can also if you wish) first dice roll upon entering: 1-5 = normal version, 6 = mysterious. We then roll again on the table replacing any non-mysterious result (a 1 on the forest char for example) with "your opponent may choose"

At this point we haven't looked at magic items, or special characters yet, but have discussed regular heroes and units for a few armies with a draft of Dwarfs, Wood Elves, Dark Elves, Lizardmen & Daemons. We mainly wanted to see if we were on track. If you like I can post the changes to Wood Elves (it being the most complete as 2 of my group play them, 1 as his only army) with reasoning for changes here when i get home from work (on lunch break atm). I would love some constructive criticism/feedback.

As for the enchanted arrows: the rules seem to be balanced, but only if you can tool them to your opponent, in a tournament type scenario where you have to reuse the same army this goes out the window. The only thing i can think of is that it be more expensive, but you can pick which type you use at deployment, and it lasts the full game. Sort of like "enchanted arrows: 5 (maybe 6) points per model." instead of the massive list in the unit options.

Lots of people say they want the perfectly balanced game but if everything was truly "balanced" then Everything would end up being the same and the game would be boring.

But anyways to answer a few of your questions:
Beastmen are probably the toughest and same with tomb kings. You can win with both but you gotta know how to use them. Which is part of the fun....learning how to win with less optimal armies which some people actually like.

I play skaven and find that I never take night runners, rat ogres, jezzails, globadiers all kinds of stuff. Core units I always take the same old thing because despite having around 6.5k of skaven its difficult to get variety in core.

I never use night runners because they are expensive for what they do and would rather put those points to other things. Jezzails bs 3...and the models are 65 dollars for 3 lol I'd also rat ogres I just done use because I need to play a bigger game to fit everything I want haha

Honestly if I could make all the changes rules wise to things it would make skaven over powered. One thing that is awesome about skaven is the like 4+ pages of magic items and stuff in our book!

 chiefbigredman wrote:
Lots of people say they want the perfectly balanced game but if everything was truly "balanced" then Everything would end up being the same and the game would be boring.

But anyways to answer a few of your questions:
Beastmen are probably the toughest and same with tomb kings. You can win with both but you gotta know how to use them. Which is part of the fun....learning how to win with less optimal armies which some people actually like.

I play skaven and find that I never take night runners, rat ogres, jezzails, globadiers all kinds of stuff. Core units I always take the same old thing because despite having around 6.5k of skaven its difficult to get variety in core.

I never use night runners because they are expensive for what they do and would rather put those points to other things. Jezzails bs 3...and the models are 65 dollars for 3 lol I'd also rat ogres I just done use because I need to play a bigger game to fit everything I want haha

Honestly if I could make all the changes rules wise to things it would make skaven over powered. One thing that is awesome about skaven is the like 4+ pages of magic items and stuff in our book!

Balanced doesn't have to mean boring. In the end balancing costs so that every unit is viable doesn't make the game boring (imo) if anything the wider range of units that people will then be able to take will make it even more interesting. Who knows what kind of army composition they will fight next game? Whereas these days a lot of armies have units you see every single game you fight them. Usually (not always) because their other units are overpriced or because that particular unit is under-priced making everything else not worth it in comparison.

Skaven was one of the books I have been looking at over the last couple days, and I agree that between units there are alot of things that seem to not be worth it compared to the rest. As for Jezzails I do think they need to be cheaper points wise (what with hitting themselves on a 1), also cash wise... they are $100 here.

I know some people the challenge of playing a lower rated army book, but the aim here is to be able to play an army and not have an immediate disadvantage because of what that army is. Besides these rules are for people who want to use them... you don't have to, It's not like they're official. I don't expect to see tournaments using them, but among friends or smaller gaming groups, where the aim is to have some fun. Ideally you could grab any book, make an army and play, have your opponent do the same and not have to worry as much about optimisation. You could take fluff lists and have them not suck (not saying all fluff lists suck, but alot do. Especially compared to optimised armies)... that sort of thing.

Anyway... the Wood Elves changes I said I'd post. Below are proposed changes and the reasons for them, (also what pages these rules can be found to compare). Feedback is appreciated.

Page 36 ‘FOREST SPIRIT’
Add : “In addition, their ward save is increased to 5+ against non-magical attacks”
REASONS: The new book seemed to make the elven units better but at the same time make the forest spirits worse. The elven units get the cool forest stalker & ASF rules but the forest spirit rule isn't that great and depending on the situation kinda got worse. We discussed it and though this would make them more competitive and closer to a sort of tree daemon in terms of the save.

Page 45 ‘WARDANCERS’
Add special rule: “Wardancer Weapons: In combat the unit counts as having two hand weapons giving them +1 attack as usual, however this extra attack can be used even if the unit replaces one of their weapons with an Asrai Spear. In addition, the Wardancers are so well trained with these weapons that they gain +1 Strength in combat. However this bonus cannot be used by a Shadowdancer character who takes a magic weapon.”
This rule is granted to all Wardancers, Bladesingers, and Shadowdancers.
Page 93 ‘WARDANCERS’
Change cost to 16 points per model, and add skill: Wardancer Weapons
REASONS: Wardancers seem really expensive for a S3, T3 model with almost no protection (especially if it's a special unit). The wardancer weapons rule we took from the previous book. It only give the S in combat but make them more useful. We felt it needed to be slightly more expensive to make it more fair as they were already reasonable.

Page 48 ‘WAYSTALKERS’
Change attacks value to 2
REASONS: they are really expensive for a 1A character. We know he's not supposed to be in combat much but come on... at least let him have the same number of attacks as a unit champion. We felt the unit was to expensive to begin with so the attack was free.

Page 49 ‘DRYADS’
Change strength value to 4
Page 91 ‘DRYADS’
Change cost to 12 points per model
Change strength value to 4
REASONS: Dryads used to be a good flexible unit. When they were made S3 we noticed nobody took them anymore. We compared them to Saurus Warriors and decided they were worth 12 points (we also made Saurus 12pts for due to the awesomeness of predatory fighter) especially when the buffed forest spirit rule is considered. We toyed with the idea of adding skirmish for 1 pt per model, we decided it was unnecessary as the ability to have ranks is so beneficial. But if you want to make them skirmish then feel free (as long as your gaming group are okay with it then go nuts)

Page 50 ‘TREE KIN’
Change strength value to 5
Page 93 ‘TREE KIN’
Change cost to 50 points per model & Change their strength value to 5
REASONS: comparing the units to various monsterous infantry (mostly kroxigors and ogres) we settled on 50 points but with their stats from the previous book (making them S5 again). We feel this makes them a viable unit once again.

Page 51 ‘TREEMAN’
Change strength and wounds values to 6
Page 95 ‘TREEMAN’
Change cost to 240 points per model
REASONS: tbh the treeman is fine as it is, the main reason we did this is because we kept confusing its stats with the previous editions treeman. We did however compare it to some of the other new monsters in the books and while the treeman is still good, we found lots of them with 6 or more wounds and 6 or more toughness, and when compared to a hydra it's not that great. However we had to increase the cost if we did this. It may even need to be 250 (let me know what you think)

Page 91 ‘GLADE GUARD’
Change cost to 11 points per model
REASONS: when compared to a high elf archer (probably the closest unit in terms of its job and skill), their stats are identical, but the archers have an extra rank and the glade guard have AP we felt this was more or less even but when we considered forest stalker we felt a they needed to be slightly more expensive than the archers.

Page 92 ‘Eternal Guard’
Change cost to 10 points per model and come equipped with a shield at extra no cost (remove shields from their options)
REASONS: when we compared them to regular high elf spearmen we weren't overly impressed (pretty much the same deal as with the glade guard and the archers), especially with the steadfast rules making stubborn not quite as good as previous editions. They do however have AP so we thought 10 points was fair. We gave them Shields for free so they were closer to HE spearmen

Page 93 ‘DEEPWOOD SCOUTS’
Change cost to 12 points per model
REASONS: just keeping them in line with Glade Guard

Pages 95 ‘GREAT EAGLES’ (also page 88 for both the Glade Lord & the Spellweaver, page 89 for the Glade Captain, and page 90 for the Spellsinger)
Change cost to 45 points per model
May be given the following upgrades (in a unit of Eagles all Eagles must have the same upgrades):
Swiftsense: (grants the eagle Always Strikes First) for +10 points per model
Rending Talons: (grants the eagle Armour Peircing Attacks) for +5 points per model
REASONS: we've always felt eagles were slightly too expensive when most people only use them for charge redirection throwaway units. We reduced the cost by a little based on that. In addition we gave them the exact same options as the eagle that HEs get. Only seems fair.

The last one we didn't write down so i dont know the pages. but Wildwood Rangers seem a little 'meh' when compared to the rest of the army, and especially when compared to the only slightly more expensive swordmasters the HEs get. We thought that giving them +1A for at 13 points per model, and changing their special fear/terror rule to +1S would be fair (we would then give Swordmasters +1WS & +1I to keep them in line with previous versions, we didnt decide weather to make them a point more expensive or not though).

Let me know what you think.

Oh well I wasn't saying that it would nessecarily make the game super boring I just think that balance is hard to achieve.

I can't comment on the wood elves stuff as I rarely play against them.
If you do some skaven stuff tho here's a few things that would make some of the stuff more worth while to take:
Night runners - have to be skirmishers, cheaper, no slinking advance garbage lol
Rat ogres - cheaper, have some sort of save (no save makes me just want to leave them at home, even a 5+ regen would be nice)
Jezzails - 20 points per model is fine but boost up the WS to 4 and have the sniper special rule (if I'm remembering right that's what I want) and then get rid of the hitting themselves on a 1.
Globadiers - slight points deduction, 12 inch range not 8 and I'd take them if they are quick to fire but quick to fire might be to much
Plague claw catapult - strength 3 not 2

They should also have lead from the rear because that's very Skaven like lol

So for the first part of this I would like opinions of players on the following:
1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why?
Tomb Kings, Beastmen, and Brettonians. I play Tomb Kings, and I see constantly how hard they are to win with. They seem to be overcosted in most departments, and don't have answers to a lot of things. Beastmen also seem to be overcosted as well. and Brettonians just need a whole new book in general.
2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win with? and why?
Ogres. They are the most optimized for this game. I know Fantasy doesn't really have a "Tau or Eldar" army, but Ogres would be damn close IMO. There's obviously a reason why people play them all the time in tournaments. This game is based around melee, and thats all they do. Run forward and you can't stop them. So, they are what I call a "point n' click" army. And then certain builds of other armies. Like, the aforementioned BOTWD. That kind of item should not exist, considering there is an army that is NOT able to do anything to them because of it.
3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced?
Wood Elves, Empire, Dwarfs, Lizardmen, and Warriors of Chaos seem to be decently balanced, though the last one is probably overall more powerful that most books.
4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use (this doesn't even have to be a unit, maybe it's just a weapon build for a unit... eg. I never see people using DE Corsairs with repeater handbows.
I play Tomb Kings mostly, and I never really see a use for Horsemen. Yeah, they're 12 points a model. But what are you getting out of it? Not a lot, obviously.
5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight?
Nope, never seen them used.
6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take)
Casket of Souls, because it is vital for an army that relies on magic to be even decent. Screaming Skull Catapult because it's cheap and can cause a good bit of damage. Chariots, because chariots.
7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies?
Chariots and the Casket are really the only things TK have over most armies. Chariots I think at at a decent price (55 ea), personally, as well as the casket (135).
8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)? eg. Khorne Skull Chariot, how does it compare to a regular empire/dwarf cannon, and to a regular chariot.
The Skull Cannon is obnoxious, yes. And is really cheap. I also have a personal vendetta against Necromancers. Cheaper overall than a Liche priest, and can heal themselves. That pisses me off, and I don't know why GW gave THEM that.

Very helpful krodarklorr

Yeah I kinda agree with the ogres being one of the strongest armies. That combined with the Ironblaster just makes them really easy to use. I foresee them being annoying to balance against other armies.

As for the horsemen thing I totally agree, them and carrion. To me those are 2 of the most useless units in that book and I have never seen either used. They are going to be one of the hardest armies to bring up to scratch. If you're okay with it I wouldn't mind discussing how to go about balancing the book on skype some time (this is usually how my friends and I try to balance the books when we aren't together, so we can all throw ideas around.) It'd be a great help to have a veteran tomb kings player to talk to (we have one tomb kings player but it was one of his secondary armies and he never really played them much).

The chariots I think are balanced, but If we can somehow figure out how to make TKs less reliant on magic then the casket may need to be looked at to see if it's still balanced.

I'll have to take a closer look at the Necromancers rules to resolve the imbalance there, but it does seem stupid that a necromancer (being technically human) can heal itself while the lich priest (the magically reanimated and necromancy infused wizard) cannot. As for the Skull Cannon... I think the whole idea of a cannon on a chariot is ridiculous, this is the same gripe I have with the ironblaster except the ironblaster is even more so (look at the model for that thing... it's like physics don't exist, the first time you fire that thing you'll crush the rhinox and rip the chariot apart. Also how the hell are you supposed to clean out the barrel and reload a moving cannon when the mouth of it is fixed pointing away from you). Personally I think making them normal war machines (and ditching the chariot would make everything so much more balanced for everyone, maybe splitting the skull cannon in to 2 different units... khorne chariot and a cannon crewed by bloodletters). I doubt this will be popular with people who play those armies though so not sure if I'll do it or not. That being said it's usually people who abuse underpriced/op units alot that complain the most when they're rules are balanced (still my aim isn't to piss people off, it's to make units fair)

Well, I'm no veteran. I've only been playing for about 5-6 months so far, but I have a good amount of units and stuff.

I think TK's main issue, and why they're reliant on magic, is because things are overcosted. Tomb Guard compared to Grave Guard? Grave guard are cheaper and can have better damage output, more easily rezzed, better armor, for overall cheaper. Because of that, we need Lore of Light to buff them to make them even stand a chance. Also, on that note, VC in general are able to rez things much easier and more of them, and yet we both have Skeletons. Same stats, everything. So what is the point in ours? Tarpit unit? Uhhhhh, no. You can't rez enough to make it worth it. I know people say to not play TK like VC, but come on, then whats the point of hordes of skeletons? >.< And as you said, we are magically animated, but can't heal ourselves? Whereas Vampires and Necromancers can. I just don't get it, man.

Small things like that bug me about this game, especially VC.

So for the first part of this I would like opinions of players on the following:

1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why? Beastmen seem to have a struggle, Here where I'm at not a single person plays O&G so I'm unable to comment but with negash out and about I think tomb kings got a nice of a boost.

2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win with? and why?Wood Elves are difficult to win against and are a bit over powered with their magic arrows. my GF runs ogres and she's enjoying them, they are tough but not over powered by any means.

3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced? to be fair with a few more updates fantasy is looking really solid sure there are great combinations that may seem broken to hell, but its nothing like 40k's obvious over powered tendencies.

4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use (this doesn't even have to be a unit, maybe it's just a weapon build for a unit... eg. I never see people using DE Corsairs with repeater handbows. I play High Elves (love em) but in reality I'm probably never going to use my prince on griffon, very awesome model but I could find better things for the points.

5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight? I'm sure people could use the griffon effectively in an aggressive cav list sure but I've not seen it where I'm at.

6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take). Phoenix Guard, they are just too amazing not to take, 15ppm, halberd gives +1, ASF, 5+/4++, martial prowess, the list goes on, with magic weapons and standards.

7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies?
At 1 point more I would probably still take them, they make an excellent horde. To be fair I'm not sure how they would compare against dark elf or even wood elf comparisons.

8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)? eg. Khorne Skull Chariot, how does it compare to a regular empire/dwarf cannon, and to a regular chariot.
mournfang calvary and empire steam tanks (when you face someone who knows how to maximize their usage it fething hurts).


I'm still fairly new getting into fantasy (came over from 40k (tired of the people and rules)) so I don't know much yet but there's my 2p

 ChaosxVoid wrote:

I play High Elves (love em) but in reality I'm probably never going to use my prince on griffon, very awesome model but I could find better things for the points.

5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight? I'm sure people could use the griffon effectively in an aggressive cav list sure but I've not seen it where I'm at.

I agree, I almost never see a Griffon used. I mean, the Griffon has good stats, but is has basically no defensive capabilities unless you fork out for the upgrades... and if you do that you may as well get a Dragon as it's a lot better. People tend to go with the cheap mount or the expensive one, the Griffon is like the under appreciated middle child. Maybe if it was a little cheaper the upgrade wouldn't be much of an issue but i'd have to compare it to other monsters in its points range. I don't think it's unbalanced, I just think a typical HE army can work fine without it so there's not really much reason to take one.

Sorry for the extra post guys, but we've made some more changes to the Wood Elves

"ENCHANTED ARROWS"
We removed all the options for enchanted arrows and replace them with the option to buy "Enchanted Arrows" for 6 points per model to the same units as before. However, instead of having to pick which type to take before the battle, you may now select which type to use after deployment but before the first turn. The type selected must be used for the rest of the game.
REASONS: we found that unless you were playing a one off game against an opponent who's race you knew ahead of time, some types of arrows never got used. This resulted in everyone taking only a couple of types that were almost always useful and also cheap. We have yet to fully play test them but based on our current reasoning we thing that having them a little more than the average cost among the options balances out the flexibility gained by the change in rules.

"WILDWOOD RANGERS"
We did pretty much what I thought we should do in the earlier post. Gave them an extra attack, made them 13 points each, and made their special rule give them +1 Strength instead of +1 Attack. We then gave Swordmasters from High Elves +1 WS and +1I to balance them a little.
REASONS: we found from playing them with the original rules that they weren't really all that good unless you happened to be attacking something that caused fear or terror. (of which about half the armies in the game only have a few, or in some cases none). We then evaluated what we thought they should be like... the most obvious comparison was Swordmasters, so we used them as a template.

Lastly we are thinking of giving both Waystalkers and Shadowdancers 50 points of magic item allowance... haven't decided yet as we can clearly see that the reason it is currently 25 is so Waystalkers can't take the Hail of Doom Arrow, and Shadowdancers can't take that item that lets you teleport between forests with your unit (which, come to think of it would probably be amazing for a unit of scouts or Waywatchers with a Waystalker).

I plan to have a Dwarfs vs Wood Elves game sometime in the next couple weeks where we test out most of the modified rules, as a result we'll be trying lots of units that have been altered in some way by these rules. If you guys like I can post a draft of the alterations for Dwarfs later in the week. In either case feedback is appreciated. Lets me know I'm not just talking to myself, among other things.

Enchanted Arrows really just need a point adjustment.

If you know who you're playing against, then you take certain things, and you don't take certain things. If you don't know, you try to generalize. There's nothing wrong with any of that.

Bodkins, Moonfire/Starfire, and Swift Shiver all ought to be cheaper. Hagsbane should cost more.
The real issue is that, while the first three are highly situational and the fourth is only slightly less situational, the fifth performs at least as good as they do in the areas where they should excel, and Hagsbane also rocks the house in basically every other area.

As to the overall purpose of this thread, though, I tried this sort of thing back in 7th. It is a huge undertaking, to say the least. I would recommend doing away with asking 20 Questions for each and every army; simply saying "what would you change to balance this game?" gets a dizzying amount of results as it is.

To toss out some seriously broad strokes:

Things that are too good: certain #6 spells, Chaos Warriors (Daemon Prince, Trolls, Ogres), Ogre Ironblaster (the rest of the book is okay, though), Steam Tanks, Beasts of Nurgle, Skull Cannons, Epidemius...um...the entirety of the Dark Elf book, and the Banner of the World Dragon.

Things that aren't good enough: most of the Orcs & Goblins Beastmen, and Tomb Kings books, many aspects of Bretonnia and Daemons, and...those weird units in every book that no one really takes (Nightrunners, Boar Boyz, Forsaken, Yhetees, Bloodcrushers and Dryads, to name a few).

Generally speaking, monsters that don't fly don't do enough, monsters that do fly do too much.
Monstrous Mounts that aren't T6, and don't have good armor are pretty worthless.
I pretty much never see gyphons, hippogryphs, abysmal terrors, characters on chariots, carnisaurs, manticores, or Wyverns. It's far too easy to kill the mount and then crush the expensive character who's now stranded on foot.

What flying monsters do too much? I see Terrorgheists as an issue, but their Deathshriek a decidedly un-monsterous trait.

Frost Phoenii are pretty wickedly good, but again, not because they're a monster. Because they've got a weird special rule in the form of their aura.

If it's simply big, tough, and can also fly, I don't see to much of an issue.

Warpsolution wrote:
What flying monsters do too much? I see Terrorgheists as an issue, but their Deathshriek a decidedly un-monsterous trait.

Frost Phoenii are pretty wickedly good, but again, not because they're a monster. Because they've got a weird special rule in the form of their aura.

If it's simply big, tough, and can also fly, I don't see to much of an issue.

Daemon princes, Terrorgheists, Phoenix, and Chimera are all amazing.

Now give me 4 monsters that don't fly that are worth taking.

As I said, the 'gheist and the Phoenix credit only a small bit of their awesomeness to the fact that they can fly. Of course, the fact that they can fly makes their other abilities all the more potent.

I will concede to the Prince and the Chimera, though. No question.

4 non-flying Monsters? Hm. The Hell Pit Abomination, the Hell Cannon, Heirotitans...and Nagash.
If we're just talking about monsters that are big and tough and scary, those first two are in there, for sure. Then I'd have to say...maybe the Arachnarok? How about the Kharibdyss, or whatever it's called? He's got a lot of stuff going for him.

 HawaiiMatt wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:
What flying monsters do too much? I see Terrorgheists as an issue, but their Deathshriek a decidedly un-monsterous trait.

Frost Phoenii are pretty wickedly good, but again, not because they're a monster. Because they've got a weird special rule in the form of their aura.

If it's simply big, tough, and can also fly, I don't see to much of an issue.

Daemon princes, Terrorgheists, Phoenix, and Chimera are all amazing.

Now give me 4 monsters that don't fly that are worth taking.

Giants.

Warpsolution wrote:
As I said, the 'gheist and the Phoenix credit only a small bit of their awesomeness to the fact that they can fly. Of course, the fact that they can fly makes their other abilities all the more potent.

I will concede to the Prince and the Chimera, though. No question.

4 non-flying Monsters? Hm. The Hell Pit Abomination, the Hell Cannon, Heirotitans...and Nagash.
If we're just talking about monsters that are big and tough and scary, those first two are in there, for sure. Then I'd have to say...maybe the Arachnarok? How about the Kharibdyss, or whatever it's called? He's got a lot of stuff going for him.

Hell pit is good, Nagash is either awesome or terrible (that's what happens when you're 1,000 points).
Really, Hell Cannon? I don't seem them much now that chaos has better rare choices (cannons).
If you want to throw special characters into the mix, you might as well add Manfred and Arkhan to the awesome and fly lists.
Interesting thing about the Hell Pit. It's great because of the inability to pin it down; kind of like what "Fly" does to the other monsters.

Arachnarok is decent, but doesn't punch too hard (only S5), and the Kharibdyss is pretty bad (too easy to kill, T5 4+ armor, or just block/redirect). If they Kharibdyss could fly, and costed 50 points more, I'd take it all the time.

Sure, the spider and the sea monster are only S or T5. I'm not saying they're amazing. They're not auto-includes. But they're not bad.
A Kharibdyss is fairly easy to kill, but it's also under 200pts for a S7 monster that gives reverse Cold-Blooded to enemy units. High S, high I units are the only thing he needs to be concerned about.

I mean, flying monsters are better. No doubt. They have a special rule that minimizes one of the main weaknesses of being a monster.
I just never see a flying monster ripping it up in the backfield, unless they have another special rule, like Death Shriek. And that other special rule is the reason they're so good. Flying just furthers the issue.

1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why?
Daemons of Chaos, they are very tricky; the winds of magic can shatter your army.2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win with? and why?
Honestly, IMO; dwarves are ridiculous. Being able to shut down a magic phase, then turn around and obliterate armies with several artillery pieces should be BANNED (j/k should be limited tho.)
3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced?
Dark Elves, Wood Elves, High Elves (ELVES!!!) Ogre Kingdoms, Orcs/goblins, and Warriors of chaos.
4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use (this doesn't even have to be a unit, maybe it's just a weapon build for a unit... eg. I never see people using DE Corsairs with repeater handbows.
I play high elves mainly, with EoT, all of the elves. Tiranoc chariot, it is not really worth taking at all. Its low T and almost non-existant armor makes paper planes seem tougher.
5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight?
I have never used one, prefer the lion chariot for killing power. I have never seen them last at all, if you put weight on them, they break.
6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take)
Phoenix Guard, and Frostheart Phoenix
7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies?
Yes, no other way around it, PG are bit more defensive than their counterparts; but can shore up a defensive army easy. The phoenix is awesome in every way.
8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)? eg. Khorne Skull Chariot, how does it compare to a regular empire/dwarf cannon, and to a regular chariot.
I believe that dwarves are kind of cheap for what you recieve. I.e., every one gets heavy armor, great weapons, T4 and LD 9 for like 8 or 9 points apiece. Daemons are seriously over costed, 5++ save for most of the army and thats all, really?

The worst armies in the game are Tomb Kings and Beastmen, followed by Orcs and Goblins. All three struggle for the same reasons: they're infantry-based lists with little armour to speak of. However Beastmen and TK struggle even more because they lack ways of dealing with armour (OnG have doom divers, mangler squiggs, fanatics, pump wagons, and foot).

They were stronger at the beginning of 8th, when infantry was all the rage for like 6 months. But then it's transitioned to being a game of cav buses and flying monsters and infantry is relegated back to the shelves that they sat on through 7th. Well...not that bad for certain scenarios, or for tar pitting monsters or characters (steadfast has it's uses), but otherwise fast lists still rule the day.

Here's my response.

1) Which armies do you think are the most under powered or difficult to win with? and why?

Beastmen. Too many overpriced units, lack of good options for handling units in newer books.

2) Which armies do you think are the most over powered or difficult to win with? and why?

Dark Elf fast cav. Tons of shooting, rarely have to commit to anything. Good magic with warlocks and level 4’s. Also Skaven. Lots of underpriced, nasty unit (Hellpit aboms, Warp lightning cannons…), ridiculously cheap units that don’t care about leadership when you take enough of them, spells that just wreck certain armies (Dreaded 13th, the one that bounces around making everyone take strength tests).

3) Which armies do you think are reasonably balanced?

High Elves, Wood Elves, Empire, Warriors, Vampire Counts, Empire, Lizardmen, Dwarfs, Brettonians, Daemons, Orc & Goblins, Ogres.

4) Which armies DO you play, and of those armies what do you find you NEVER use

Empire, High Elves, and Warriors of Chaos.

Empire units I don’t field: generals (better alternatives), witchhunters (useless), state troops other than halberdiers and archers (these two are the best and coolest), flagellants (too squishy, don’t like the models), helstorms and mortars (nerfed, too expensive), luminark and hurricanum (models are dumb, don’t care for the rules).

Warriors: Forsaken (dumb models, hate the random attacks and abilities), chaos ogres and trolls (dumb models, low leadership, don’t fit my armored Khorne list thematically), dragon ogres and shaggoths (dislike the models, too many points). Anything else I don’t use is because it doesn’t fit with my Khorne theme.

High Elves: I’m new with the HE’s so I just haven’t had time to collect more than I already have. However, I wouldn’t use seaguard because they’re more expensive than archers and spearmen and worse at shooting. Don’t use the chariots because they’re far too fragile. Anything else I would consider using.


5) Why do you never use those units? Do you ever see them used in games and pull their weight?

Too many units I don’t use for each army. In general, there are units that fit the same role that do things better and/or are cheaper at it. See individual explanations.

6) As 4 but for units you always (or almost always take)

Empire: Steam tank (tons of utility, hitting power, survivability, and super fun), halberdiers (strength 4), archers (cheap redirectors and chaff), knights (survivable, fast, hard-hitting core unit).

Warriors: chariots and warriors (good solid core choices. Cool models and fun to deck out as Khorne followers), Skullcrushers (cool models, hard hitting), Gorebeast chariot (super tough, hard hitting),

High Elves: White lions (high strength, stubborn, resistant to missile fire), bolt throwers (super efficient and versatile shooting)

7) Do you think they are balanced? would you still take them if they were 1 point more (maybe 20 points more for a monster)? How do these units compare to similarly costed units from other armies?

I would take these chaos units if they were a little pricier. Not the Empire or high Elves, because there are other decent alternatives that would then become a cheaper options.

8) Are there unit's that you regularly take of play against that just seem too good for their points cost (this is especially helpful if you can compare it to a similar unit)?

Ogre Ironblaster (toughness, ability to outperform other cannons, severely undercosted), hellpit aboms (undercosted, ridiculously tough and hard hitting, ability to come back after killed), Dark elf warlocks (4+ ward save, access to incrediblel spells, don’t care about miscasts).

@Pelas Mir'sa: Ummmm...

#1--Dwarfs are fine. They cannot "shut down" anyone's magic phase. An extra Dispel Scroll, a few units with MR1, and maybe having a +4 to dispel isn't exactly an airtight anti-magic phase.

#2--Dark Elves are obviously too good. Show me one unit in that book that's bad. There aren't any. There are only units that are good, great, awesome, and sickening.
High Elves aren't nearly as bad, but have a few units/items/rules that range from a bit too efficient to OMG WHY.

#7--I think you missed the point. The OP is asking if the units you auto-take are balanced. Saying the Frost Phoenix is "awesome in every way" actually goes to show that it's not balanced.

@Warptide:

#2--Really? More Skaven-hate? I just don't see it.
Sure, it's got some units that can wreak a lot of destruction per point, but that's the Skaven way. Take another race's war machine/magic/monster, make it cheaper, and then give it a chance to kill your own troops and/or blow up.
The big issue with the Skaven book is that it's old. It's rules don't always play nice with 8th.
I've had games where I casually destroy everything my opponent can throw at me (which is awful and boring), and I've had games where my best efforts are for naught (which is awful and frustrating).
A Skaven army's success really just boils down to a dice pool that's smaller than other armies; that handful that determines the performance of your Grey Seer, Warp Lightning Cannons, and the like. So outliers are more extreme.

#7--I'm pretty sure everyone would take Steam Tanks, even if they cost A LOT more. You say the Abomination is underpriced? Let's compare stats...


Overall, I think this thread is trying to handle too big of a topic. I'd start several smaller threads, dedicated to each army.
Start with Beastmen. Then Tomb Kings/Orcs & Goblins. Then Brettonia and Skaven (not because they're horrible; because they're ancient).

...of course, that's assuming you're going to ignore the End Times. Because it changes EVERYTHING.