Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?Maybe... though those situation are pretty hard to even imagine - I've never seen an issue in 40k that couldn't be fixed by working out a units price. The end result of all balance issues come down to damage/defense/utility for x price. If somethings price does not meet with it's abilities it is ether overpowered/underpowered. There really isn't any other way of looking at it.

We prefer, "Points efficient."

I agree. It makes me facepalm when someone doesn't equate an inappropriate cost with being OP or UP as the case may be.
It is literally the metric by which power should be determined.

Sadly the points aren't always that well calculated, but that's one area where GW hasn't always been alone. I remember the BattleValue points they used in FASA's BattleTech game at some point. Sure, it worked if you used the same tech base but once you took Clan mechs vs Inner Sphere mechs the clanners would easily slag the same points of IS forces most of the time.

There are extreme examples where something would be overpowered regardless of its points cost (or the opposite), but in general, yes, undercosted and overpowered are one and the same for discussion purposes.

At best, its splitting hairs or arguing semantics when someone claims something is undercosted instead of overpowered.

Sometimes it’s also a mater of scale. If a unit is 5-10 points less then I think it should be, that’s underpriced. 50 points off is overpowered.

But, yah, semantics.

 Nevelon wrote:
Sometimes it’s also a mater of scale. If a unit is 5-10 points less then I think it should be, that’s underpriced. 50 points off is overpowered.

But, yah, semantics.

Good example, and I agree, semantics really.

Yeh I think overpowered is generally used to mean very or extremely undercosted. Literally though - it should apply to all.

I personally think for example that the legacy schism of mars is undercosted by 10pts. Literally that means I think it is overpowered, but I wouldn't class it as 'overpowered' in the traditional sense as its cost is added onto a vehicles already high cost.

I think people reserve OP (or UP) for units which NEED an immediate change to restore reasonable balance. Whereas 10-15pts too cheap on a 160pt model is acceptable level of reasonable balance. Whereas 10-15pts too cheap on a 27pt model is considered OP because the ratio takes it completely out of the sphere of reasonable balance.

But yes - literally speaking, if something is 5pts undercosted then it is OP. But then discussions would never get anywhere as this would apply to about 40% of the avaliable units/wargear/weapon options. (I estimate a 40-20-40 split between UP-OK-OP... pulled this out of my behind on gut feeling)

Basically what Nevelon summerised in much fewer words ^.

Almost always true.

I maintain the 6e Wave Serpent was overpriced *and* broken, not overcosted (costs more than the 10man DAs I put inside!), because increasing the price alone wouldn't reasonably fix it short of making it unplayable.

But situations like that are rare.

It's a "not all rectangles are squares" problem.

Undercosted units are broken, but not all broken units are undercosted.

While, I agree that the difference is all semantics, the distinction for me has everything to do with what the "solution" should be to the problem is.

I would say a unit is overpowered because it is able to consistently kill more than it's points worth, yet a points increase for that unit would not be appropriate for some reason (fluff or otherwise, explained below).

I would call a unit undercosted because it does what is should, but cost much less than other equivalent units.

Using Eldar as examples:
The WraithKnight is a big, scary walking living construct with cannons that rip holes between dimensions. It *should* be capable of doing what it does, but other similar units cost much more. Therefore, the WK is "Under-costed", implying that the best solution to fix the WK is to bump the points, not tweak the stats/rules. A WK should cost as much as an Imp Knight

The Windriders, however, form the backbone of a major Craftworld as well as a large portion of others. They imploy harassment tactics, are super fast and should be spammable. However, being given a weapon that compensates for one of their major weaknesses for the same cost as their traditional upgrade and being able to all carry that weapon, makes the bikes "Over-powered". This implies that the points cost of the bikes alone are fine, but that something should be tweaked in their rules, like lowering their armour save to 4+, or making the Scatterlaser more expensive to buy.
-------------------------------------------
"Over-powered" units should stay about the cost they currently are, but be toned down (like the 6th ed. Wave Serpent), while "Under-costed" units just need a points bump.

-

I'd argue that there is a slight difference for fringe cases, but yes; the majority of underpriced units are overpowered.
The difference IMO is that some units/abilities simply have no place in the game regardless of how much they are charged for it. The nature of the damage mechanics, along with a few 'silver bullet' effects that simply remove targets, mean that sometimes a unit has no balancing factor; it is either immune to the vast majority of the game, or utterly vulnerable to a few select pieces, with no middle ground. Other times there are effects which are simply not suited for a competitive game, regardless of the cost.

As an example of the first case, I'd consider a Knight army. The AV system means that a Knight is immune to the vast majority of weaponry in the game, and generally only a small number of optional upgrades are capable of punching through. Essentially all of the points invested into anti-infantry are wasted while the Knight player only worries about the remaining ~10% with high-powered weaponry. On the flipside, armies with inherently higher access to anti-tank (Gauss, Wraithguard, Ad-Mech) are going to have a far easier time of it and all the points spent on high AV levels are wasted.
There is very little space for a balanced middle ground; either the Knights opponent has enough meltaguns, or they don't. No amount of tactical aptitude will make up for that and so the Knights are overpowered, not simply undercosted.

As an example of the second, something like a unit that automatically kills whatever it hits with a gun. While it could be given a points cost, there is no fair level where it can make a balanced contribution to the game; if it has the capacity to down a Titan in one shot, but most of the time will be firing at grunts, how can you possibly cost it?
See- Wraithguard.

 Galef wrote:
While, I agree that the difference is all semantics, the distinction for me has everything to do with what the "solution" should be to the problem is.

I would say a unit is overpowered because it is able to consistently kill more than it's points worth, yet a points increase for that unit would not be appropriate for some reason (fluff or otherwise, explained below).

I would call a unit undercosted because it does what is should, but cost much less than other equivalent units.

Using Eldar as examples:
The WraithKnight is a big, scary walking living construct with cannons that rip holes between dimensions. It *should* be capable of doing what it does, but other similar units cost much more. Therefore, the WK is "Under-costed", implying that the best solution to fix the WK is to bump the points, not tweak the stats/rules. A WK should cost as much as an Imp Knight

The Windriders, however, form the backbone of a major Craftworld as well as a large portion of others. They imploy harassment tactics, are super fast and should be spammable. However, being given a weapon that compensates for one of their major weaknesses for the same cost as their traditional upgrade and being able to all carry that weapon, makes the bikes "Over-powered". This implies that the points cost of the bikes alone are fine, but that something should be tweaked in their rules, like lowering their armour save to 4+, or making the Scatterlaser more expensive to buy.
-------------------------------------------
"Over-powered" units should stay about the cost they currently are, but be toned down (like the 6th ed. Wave Serpent), while "Under-costed" units just need a points bump.

-

I completely agree with this post. This was my argument awhile back about Wraiths from Necrons. They don't outright break the game, but they should've been easily 5-10 points more expensive per model. Thus, I feel they're "undercosted", not quite OP.

Bharring wrote:
Almost always true.

I maintain the 6e Wave Serpent was overpriced *and* broken, not overcosted (costs more than the 10man DAs I put inside!), because increasing the price alone wouldn't reasonably fix it short of making it unplayable.

But situations like that are rare.

You bring up a good point, and I think this is where you have to take into consideration the role the unit plays. 6th edition WS were intended as transports, but due to the power of the serpent shield, people quickly figured out that they served better as battle tanks that could be spammed outside of the Heavy Support role. As a transport, the WS was priced about right, maybe a even bit high, however, as a battle tank, it was undercosted in comparison to other vehicles that filled that role, especially given the ease of access in a standard CAD.

Another example of OP but not really underpriced are units that, by themselves, are fine, but when combined with a special character, or allied unit/character, become broken even though said combined unit is extremely expensive. An example of this would be the Draigo GravCent-Star. By itself, a unit of GravCents is probably priced right on the money, powerful, appropriately expensive (80 points per), with enough of a downside to balance it out (lack of cheap transport, no invulnerable save, somewhat short range, useless against some armies). But when you add Draigo (who is also appropriately expensive) and his teleporting psychic shenanigans, that unit, while probably priced about right when looking at the individual pieces, can break the game against certain armies. The unit becomes OP because Draigo effectively removes the all but one of the balancing factors from the GravCents, but its hard to say that the combined unit is underpriced.

So while I think its plausible to say that Underpriced=Overpowered, the reverse is not always true.

Some psychic powers can be overpowered, regardless of cost, the most obvious being invisibility. It's just so good that of you plunk it onto a really durable unit, that unit becomes ridiculously impossible to kill with normal units. In the case of invisibility, a better fix is to nerf the ability than to make it more costly.

Plus, psychic abilities can also be overpowered simply because you pay the same point cost, but might get a crappy or supremely awesome psychic ability.

 Talys wrote:
Some psychic powers can be overpowered, regardless of cost, the most obvious being invisibility. It's just so good that of you plunk it onto a really durable unit, that unit becomes ridiculously impossible to kill with normal units. In the case of invisibility, a better fix is to nerf the ability than to make it more costly.

Plus, psychic abilities can also be overpowered simply because you pay the same point cost, but might get a crappy or supremely awesome psychic ability.

I dunno, a meltagun that requires you to manifest it and get it past Deny the Witch is pretty damn good compared to Invisibility for the same WC. (my sarcasm cannot be overstated)

Worst part about abilities and psychic powers that combo and are too strong/weak is the only real way to bring them inline without either overpowering or underpowering the provider of said ability/power is through good playtesting.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Some psychic powers can be overpowered, regardless of cost, the most obvious being invisibility. It's just so good that of you plunk it onto a really durable unit, that unit becomes ridiculously impossible to kill with normal units. In the case of invisibility, a better fix is to nerf the ability than to make it more costly.

Plus, psychic abilities can also be overpowered simply because you pay the same point cost, but might get a crappy or supremely awesome psychic ability.

I dunno, a meltagun that requires you to manifest it and get it past Deny the Witch is pretty damn good compared to Invisibility for the same WC. (my sarcasm cannot be overstated)

Worst part about abilities and psychic powers that combo and are too strong/weak is the only real way to bring them inline without either overpowering or underpowering the provider of said ability/power is through good playtesting.

On top of that, I don't believe random abilities can be 'costed' correctly, because there is no chance that all spell-like effects are going to be of equal value in the game. The only way to correctly cost it would be to make them as weak as the crappiest spell, or to gut the system and cost abilities separately, allowing the player to choose the ability they want for a known price. Even so, some spells are just too good (and some spells nobody in their right mind would ever take).

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?

It is possible for a unit to be undercosted but not overpowered. Consider if Imperial Guardsmen had their cost cut from 5 pts down to 3 pts if they lost their 5+ saves (not that they got them very often). They would probably be considered undercosted, because they're probably worth 4 or 5 points each. It'd save 10-20 points per squad, like getting the Heavy weapon for free. But would they be overpowered? I'm not sure that they would be overpowered, even in quantity.

It is definitely possible for a unit to be overpowered without being undercosted. Consider a bolter-like gun that wounds models equal to their Armor Save - if it's costed for 4+ typical Stormtroopers and 3+ Marines, then it's overpowered against 2+ Terminators but still fairly costed overall, because it's not good against 5+ (or worse) Orks and Gaunts. Situationally overpowered, but generally not overcosted.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?

It is possible for a unit to be undercosted but not overpowered. Consider if Imperial Guardsmen had their cost cut from 5 pts down to 3 pts if they lost their 5+ saves (not that they got them very often). They would probably be considered undercosted, because they're probably worth 4 or 5 points each. It'd save 10-20 points per squad, like getting the Heavy weapon for free. But would they be overpowered? I'm not sure that they would be overpowered, even in quantity.

It is definitely possible for a unit to be overpowered without being undercosted. Consider a bolter-like gun that wounds models equal to their Armor Save - if it's costed for 4+ typical Stormtroopers and 3+ Marines, then it's overpowered against 2+ Terminators but still fairly costed overall, because it's not good against 5+ (or worse) Orks and Gaunts. Situationally overpowered, but generally not overcosted.

I disagree. Overpowered by definition equals undercosted. There are only three states possible for a unit: properly pointed, overcosted, and undercosted. Undercosted by definition means that the unit gets too many game effects for the price you pay to field it. Units can be only slight undercosted, making them slightly overpowered. Some units are groslly undercosted, making them grossly overpowered.

 Galef wrote:
I would call a unit undercosted because it does what is should, but cost much less than other equivalent units.

Using Eldar as examples:
The Windriders, however, form the backbone of a major Craftworld as well as a large portion of others. They imploy harassment tactics, are super fast and should be spammable. However, being given a weapon that compensates for one of their major weaknesses for the same cost as their traditional upgrade and being able to all carry that weapon, makes the bikes "Over-powered". This implies that the points cost of the bikes alone are fine, but that something should be tweaked in their rules, like lowering their armour save to 4+, or making the Scatterlaser more expensive to buy.

If a mere points cost bump fixes it, did you not just argue that the Scatterlaser is undercosted, but not overpowered?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I would call a unit undercosted because it does what is should, but cost much less than other equivalent units.

Using Eldar as examples:
The Windriders, however, form the backbone of a major Craftworld as well as a large portion of others. They imploy harassment tactics, are super fast and should be spammable. However, being given a weapon that compensates for one of their major weaknesses for the same cost as their traditional upgrade and being able to all carry that weapon, makes the bikes "Over-powered". This implies that the points cost of the bikes alone are fine, but that something should be tweaked in their rules, like lowering their armour save to 4+, or making the Scatterlaser more expensive to buy.

If a mere points cost bump fixes it, did you not just argue that the Scatterlaser is undercosted, but not overpowered?

No. The model that needs a point bump is both undercosted and overpowered. You can't look at the weapon system in a vacuum.

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?

It is possible for a unit to be undercosted but not overpowered. Consider if Imperial Guardsmen had their cost cut from 5 pts down to 3 pts if they lost their 5+ saves (not that they got them very often). They would probably be considered undercosted, because they're probably worth 4 or 5 points each. It'd save 10-20 points per squad, like getting the Heavy weapon for free. But would they be overpowered? I'm not sure that they would be overpowered, even in quantity.

It is definitely possible for a unit to be overpowered without being undercosted. Consider a bolter-like gun that wounds models equal to their Armor Save - if it's costed for 4+ typical Stormtroopers and 3+ Marines, then it's overpowered against 2+ Terminators but still fairly costed overall, because it's not good against 5+ (or worse) Orks and Gaunts. Situationally overpowered, but generally not overcosted.

I disagree. Overpowered by definition equals undercosted. There are only three states possible for a unit: properly pointed, overcosted, and undercosted. Undercosted by definition means that the unit gets too many game effects for the price you pay to field it. Units can be only slight undercosted, making them slightly overpowered. Some units are groslly undercosted, making them grossly overpowered.

I disagree, because I distinguish between power and cost. Your "definition" is wrong. A unit can be of an appropriate power level (what it does) and its cost can vary wildly.

I don't think my definition is wrong at all. I think you are confusing the issue. Again, there are only three states for a unit in this kind of game: appropriately costed, undercosted, overcosted.

Agreed:

If Wind Riders were 25 ppm and the Scatter Laser was a 15 point upgrade (which is actually incredibly cheap for what you're getting - consider that Terminators are 40 points and not nearly as capable), nobody would be complaining about them.

By the looks of it one of you is saying the Wraithknight is not overpowered in the fluff terms but undercosted in the points sense. Whereas the other is stating it is undercosted in the points sense hence overpowered in game terms.
One is arguing from a fluff based reasoning and the other from game based reasoning. You are both using different parameters.
However when dicussing whether a unit is OP for its points we must consider it in game terms. Otherwise nobody has a right to argue against any marine players who say a SM is horrendously underpowered (for example).

Fluff is meaningless when it comes to game balance.

Martel732 wrote:
Fluff is meaningless when it comes to game balance.

I completely agree.

I think the point is just semantics.

Think of the fix,
To fix this unit should it
A) be more expensive (but same rules) - undercosted
Or
B) be weaker (but same cost) - over powered.

These semantics help give context to peoples issue with the unit.

Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

 Talys wrote:
Some psychic powers can be overpowered, regardless of cost, the most obvious being invisibility. It's just so good that of you plunk it onto a really durable unit, that unit becomes ridiculously impossible to kill with normal units. In the case of invisibility, a better fix is to nerf the ability than to make it more costly.

Plus, psychic abilities can also be overpowered simply because you pay the same point cost, but might get a crappy or supremely awesome psychic ability.

I agree with that. I was more specifically referring to units. Psychic powers have their own balancing factors (though they clearly aren't all on par with each other) Most armies have the ability to take the same spells and usually pay about the same for them and for the most part are randomly generated and can be nullified.

Take Tigaris for example. He can have a god roll and get invis, ignore cover, and 4+ FNP eternal warrior - and turn any unit into an unstoppable death-star. Or he can roll crap and get the 3 leadership spells in telepathy. It gets really hard to gauge the appropriate points for psykers. Again I agree - a few spells are seriously out of line - I'm not sure that makes psykers overpowered though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

I said situations like that are possible. 95% of the time people are defending a unit by saying it's just under-costed not overpowered (because it sounds less severe). It is not a valid defense for overpowered units.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

I'll be honest, I hadn't thought of something like that. But that's not the kind of thing GW usually does.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

I think I would still argue that the Rhino of Doom doesn't represent any distinction between OP and undercosted.

Sure, it is very powerful in certain situations and useless in others. By the same note, Scatterbikes are very powerful against most targets, but can't scratch AV14. Are Scatterbikes therefore costed appropriately, but OP? I don't think so.

A better distinction may be in describing a codex vs. describing a unit. Units can be undercosted, overcosted, or appropriately costed. A codex's ability to spam undercosted units leads to an over-powered codex.

Hmm, I recognize this units is too powerful given the rules for it, but I don't want to imply that GW might be at fault in any shape or fashion.

"It's just undercosted! See, GW's always trying to give us bargains! "

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Overpowered by definition equals undercosted. There are only three states possible for a unit: properly pointed, overcosted, and undercosted. Undercosted by definition means that the unit gets too many game effects for the price you pay to field it. Units can be only slight undercosted, making them slightly overpowered. Some units are groslly undercosted, making them grossly overpowered.

No, I disagree with this. Not everything can be fixed by adjusting points. It is possible to make units simply too hard to kill, or create combinations which have no statistical possibility of being beat. Some things just shouldn't be in the game.

For instance, let's say you have a 4 different ways to avoid damage with a 2+ roll. Each is ok by itself, and be properly costed, but combine them all, and it's no longer possible to kill the unit. The game should not allow such a combination, because the combination is far more powerful.

The cost of such a unit would just be so high as to not be practical. Everything should have a fair cost.

But if there is no fair cost for a unit, then it can only be considered overpowered. For example any unit that cannot be destroyed due to various game effects will never be pointed correctly or fairly. As such it can only be considered overpowered.

This is especially true when some abilities get combined either by accident or on purpose, it doesn't matter if it is situational, the fact that it can happen is what gives it the OP label.

As I said, the fair cost might make it untenable in the game.

But there is no fair cost for something that is so powerful it breaks the game. Even considering a game like 40K where the point limit can go as high as the two players agree to.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But there is no fair cost for something that is so powerful it breaks the game. Even considering a game like 40K where the point limit can go as high as the two players agree to.

I'll throw my weight behind this, for what it's worth. Some things are reasonably powered but just too cheap in points, like the new scatterbikes (since we're all talking about eldar so much these days). At 35-40 pts/model, they'd be pretty reasonable. The wraithknight, on the other hand, with two ranged D weapons that can target different units, is just kind of broken at any points cost in my opinion, since regardless of the size and toughness of a model a WK has a pretty good shot at killing it in one round of shooting (~30% chance of getting at least one six on two hits), and regardless of points cost needs its rules toned way down.

What I mean is that if you have a unit that just turns the game into a "whoever goes first wins" there isn't really a fair points cost for that, raising its points cost won't be sufficient to rebalance it and make it fair, and the rules should be fixed because it's too powerful.

Maybe people should buy the extremely large GW terrain pieces to hide their important behind, and play the missions with the GW Maelstrom (tm) deck that mitigates any tactical advantage of being able to shoot things.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, the fair cost might make it untenable in the game.

Yes, I understand your point. You can say, the unit which cannot die costs a 100,000 points; therefore you will never field it.

However, mine is this: Unit A, B, and C are all fair at 200 points. However, combine them, and their TOTAL value needs to be 100,000 points, because combined, now you have a statistically indestructible superunit.

There is no mechanism within 40k to compensate for force multipliers -- that is, increase the point values of abilities or units based on their ability to be more effective when used synergistically with another unit. This is why Invisibility is broken. No unit that can be invisible is broken by itself. The problem is that it can join up with some deathstar that you can drop in the middle of the table and indiscriminately point at and delete enemy units every turn. There are similar combinations of abilities, buffs, and relics for various factions which create situations where individually, it's all fair, but combined, you have a stupidly powerful unit that's just no fun to play against.

These are "overpowered" independent of point cost, in the context of Warhammer 40k, because other than taking away the combination (for instance by nerfing one of the components or changing the way they interact), you can't fix the problem.

This is a different from the overpowered/undercosted single unit, which I agree, can be adjusted for by points costs or FoC limits.

Similarly, if the best fix for a unit is a rules change, not a points change, would that not make it overpowered but not undercosted?

For example, I believe windrider jetbikes, and their scatter laser upgrade to be appropriately costed... the overpowered comes from being able to take the upgrade for the whole squad. If it went back to 1 upgrade per 3 models, then the problem would be mostly fixed and rebalanced, but no points change was needed.

Thus over-powered, not undercosted.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?Maybe... though those situation are pretty hard to even imagine - I've never seen an issue in 40k that couldn't be fixed by working out a units price. The end result of all balance issues come down to damage/defense/utility for x price. If somethings price does not meet with it's abilities it is ether overpowered/underpowered. There really isn't any other way of looking at it.

I think the problem with the overpowered/overcosted is in most cases not real. There were very few units realy overpowered in w40k in the last 3 editions I played. The eldar titan, the old necron ctan and the serpent. I can't think of any other overpowered ones. There is on the other hand a ton of overcosted and bad units. There are whole army books, which have unit after unit costing too much. This gives the false impression that anything good or normal is OP. As much as I dislike playing against eldar, lucky no necron players are here, their books are not overpowered. They are what all books should be. Multiple good toolbox units, most options viable, units with synergy in and outside of the codex they come from. All books should be like that. Why they are not, is a question GW should anwser.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

That's not an example of something overpowered though, that's an example of something horribly unbalanced.

Something that costs a lot of points, sometimes does so awesomely that it is worth many times more than that many points but usually just dies and contributes nothing to the battle.... unbalanced, not overpowered.

Makumba wrote:
I think the problem with the overpowered/overcosted is in most cases not real. There were very few units realy overpowered in w40k in the last 3 editions I played. The eldar titan, the old necron ctan and the serpent. I can't think of any other overpowered ones. There is on the other hand a ton of overcosted and bad units. There are whole army books, which have unit after unit costing too much. This gives the false impression that anything good or normal is OP. As much as I dislike playing against eldar, lucky no necron players are here, their books are not overpowered. They are what all books should be. Multiple good toolbox units, most options viable, units with synergy in and outside of the codex they come from. All books should be like that. Why they are not, is a question GW should anwser.

That's kind of splitting hairs. If you say that there are a ton of overcosted (or bad) units, that everything else is undercosted. The cost of a unit is important only as a relative value to its alternatives. If a fairly costed wave serpent were 220 points and a wraith knight were 600 points, terminator squads, and wyches at their current point costs suddenly look fantastic.

I do totally agree with you that the Eldar codex is great by itself: there are many compelling units, reasonably coated, and pretty much nothing terrible. All codices should be written like this.

The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I don't think they are really that different at all. The primary exception to this is broken combinations, which have to be addressed differently.

 statu wrote:
The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I agree with this. One issue is that the power level of a unit can vary based on army composition, but the cost level is always fixed. For example, one flier, summoner, or high armor vehicle can be manageable on its own, but they become increasingly powerful when you spam them. The same could be said of certain synergistic applications of wargear, unit abilities, and psychic powers.

In fact, the Australian Community Comp has a system where certain units that cost an increasing amount of credits to field them for tournies. For example, the first unit costs 1, the 2nd 2, then 3 etc.

As a result I consider cost and power level to be related, but not synonymous terms.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they are really that different at all. The primary exception to this is broken combinations, which have to be addressed differently.

I agree with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_hanged_man wrote:

 statu wrote:
The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I agree with this. One issue is that the power level of a unit can vary based on army composition, but the cost level is always fixed. For example, one flier, summoner, or high armor vehicle can be manageable on its own, but they become increasingly powerful when you spam them. The same could be said of certain synergistic applications of wargear, unit abilities, and psychic powers.

In fact, the Australian Community Comp has a system where certain units that cost an increasing amount of credits to field them for tournies. For example, the first unit costs 1, the 2nd 2, then 3 etc.

As a result I consider cost and power level to be related, but not synonymous terms.

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

Starcraft does. Spamming anything makes you a sad panda when the hard counter shows up. But there are units in 40K that have no counter. At least, no cost effective counters. Maybe static lists are a gaming dead end. I'd love to be able to rush an Eldar base before they can get out the Wraithknights.

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

Sure, but the need for arbitrary constraints only serves to highlight the differences between cost and power level.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

Sure, but the need for arbitrary constraints only serves to highlight the differences between cost and power level.

Didn't matter to them before, they used to have 0-1 stuff before 5th edition.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

That's not an example of something overpowered though, that's an example of something horribly unbalanced.

Something that costs a lot of points, sometimes does so awesomely that it is worth many times more than that many points but usually just dies and contributes nothing to the battle.... unbalanced, not overpowered.

Exactly. I think we have to differentiate between unit balance and codex balance...

To get a little bit more spicific:

In a perfectly balanced game, everbody has the same chances to win. Means 50/50 in a two player game.

So what is a perfectly balanced unit in 40k? 50/50 against each other unit is not possible except every unit has the same stats and equipment (how boring) Does that mean there is no chance of balance for units with different stats? No! Think of rock-paper-scissors. Perfectly balanced game cause your AVERAGE chances of winning are still 50/50 because the AVERAGE chance of each choice (rock, paper scissor) is also 50/50. While a rock always fails against paper, it always wins against scissors.

For 40k this means, if a unit in average kills as many points per game/turn as it looses points per game/turn, then it is perfectly balanced. Doesnt mean that it cant have any advantages or disadvantages against certain units, as long as they cancel each other on average. If not then its undercosted or overcosted (overpowered or underpowered) in unit to unit balance.

Problem is, if all units are in perfect balance with each other, that doesnt mean, that the game itself is balanced, cause we have somehow the codex balance problem:. Think of playing rock-paper-scissors with the additional rule, that one player isnt allowed to pick anything else than rocks. Then he looses the ability to beat paper and the game isnt balanced anymore... So for this player paper would be totally overpowered.

Finally we get back to our 250 point-Tyranid-Grey-Knight-Killer Rhino, which itself might be in perfect unit-balance and hence not overpowered in general, cause against any other army you paid 250 points for a 11/11/10 stormbolter transport... yay... So even if the points are perfectly right, we have a unit that is Overpowered against some codices and totally underpowered against others.

So what does this mean? Basically the statement overpowered == undercostet is a matter of perspective (Codex balance or unit Balance). Personaly I would say Xenomancers is right with his statement overpowered == undercosted. Situationally overpowered units like the Killer rhino I would address with "bad codex balancing".

About psychic abilities: Even if they are totally random within their powerlevels, I think it would be possible to fix them:
The chance of casting an ability has to be related to their value in the game (which is not possible with the current system of casting powers, cause there are only three levels). But I mean, invincibility wouldnt be OP if the chance of casting it successfully would be just 5%. But if I had to fix that without changing the system or the spells, I would drop the random selection of powers and let the players pay an amount of points related to the power level and chances to cast the spell.

Greetings MoG

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

I've never seen Decurion described as fair and reasonable.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).
____

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've never seen Decurion described as fair and reasonable.

A year from now, when all of the other Codices get Decurion / Warhost-like things, you will.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).

This is the key thing that most people miss when they talk about the Eldar being overpowered. They talk about battle focus on wraithknights and wraithguard, up to a dozen knights, forty scatter lasers on bikes, a full seer council -- and then buff it all with the best psychic abilities -- as if you could put it all on one table.

On your sub 2000 pt games, it's costed so that almost any of those great choices (there are so many good ones now) will chew up half your points or more, and you NEED the other half to add on bodies and fill in the gaps of whatever your cool shiny toy is missing. The Eldar having a book full of good choices doesn't mean you can have ALL of them at the same time.

I think a lot of it is just envy that most of us have half of a book full of terrible choices, some mediocre choices, and a couple of good choices.

 Talys wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).

This is the key thing that most people miss when they talk about the Eldar being overpowered. They talk about battle focus on wraithknights and wraithguard, up to a dozen knights, forty scatter lasers on bikes, a full seer council -- and then buff it all with the best psychic abilities -- as if you could put it all on one table.

On your sub 2000 pt games, it's costed so that almost any of those great choices (there are so many good ones now) will chew up half your points or more, and you NEED the other half to add on bodies and fill in the gaps of whatever your cool shiny toy is missing. The Eldar having a book full of good choices doesn't mean you can have ALL of them at the same time.

I think a lot of it is just envy that most of us have half of a book full of terrible choices, some mediocre choices, and a couple of good choices.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

 Jayden63 wrote:
For example any unit that cannot be destroyed due to various game effects will never be pointed correctly or fairly. As such it can only be considered overpowered.

Thats not really true. It can even be undercosted. Think of 3 units of 10 Orks vs your unkillable unit. If your unkillable unit is just able to kill 1 Ork per turn, do you think its worth 1000 points? Well I dont think so. Point costs control the ratio in numbers and as long as you can balance by adjusting numbers, you can balance by adjusting points. Your Unkillable unit kills 1000 Orks per turn? Fine, so let it cost as much as 1.000.000 Orks and its still underpowered. 993.000 remaining orks at the end of turn 7 will surely grab more objectives.


And for some logical reasons:

If it is possible to make an overpowered unit underpowered by making it so extremly expensive that it seems silly, there must exist a point somewhere in between where it is balanced.


Only unit you cant balance is the I-Win-Button

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).

This is the key thing that most people miss when they talk about the Eldar being overpowered. They talk about battle focus on wraithknights and wraithguard, up to a dozen knights, forty scatter lasers on bikes, a full seer council -- and then buff it all with the best psychic abilities -- as if you could put it all on one table.

On your sub 2000 pt games, it's costed so that almost any of those great choices (there are so many good ones now) will chew up half your points or more, and you NEED the other half to add on bodies and fill in the gaps of whatever your cool shiny toy is missing. The Eldar having a book full of good choices doesn't mean you can have ALL of them at the same time.

I think a lot of it is just envy that most of us have half of a book full of terrible choices, some mediocre choices, and a couple of good choices.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

If we look at the recent books, I don't think Necrons or Khorne got the short end of things, so it's just a question of more Codex updates this year.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

In what game do elves ever get it bad?

They are always a top tier race, forever cast by popular fantasy -- the likes of Galadriel and Elrond; aloof, beautiful,mysterious, eternal of wisdom and ancient of power... and tragically doomed. And since Peter Jackson, evidently, they are also masters of ninjitsu. Of course, since the erstwhile hero must only deal with a tiny sliver of an elven life, and mostly the battle aspects of it, none of the negatives come into play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).

This is the key thing that most people miss when they talk about the Eldar being overpowered. They talk about battle focus on wraithknights and wraithguard, up to a dozen knights, forty scatter lasers on bikes, a full seer council -- and then buff it all with the best psychic abilities -- as if you could put it all on one table.

On your sub 2000 pt games, it's costed so that almost any of those great choices (there are so many good ones now) will chew up half your points or more, and you NEED the other half to add on bodies and fill in the gaps of whatever your cool shiny toy is missing. The Eldar having a book full of good choices doesn't mean you can have ALL of them at the same time.

I think a lot of it is just envy that most of us have half of a book full of terrible choices, some mediocre choices, and a couple of good choices.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

If we look at the recent books, I don't think Necrons or Khorne got the short end of things, so it's just a question of more Codex updates this year.

I don't care about fluff. It's fluff.

 Talys wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

In what game do elves ever get it bad?

They are always a top tier race, forever cast by popular fantasy -- the likes of Galadriel and Elrond; aloof, beautiful,mysterious, eternal of wisdom and ancient of power... and tragically doomed. And since Peter Jackson, evidently, they are also masters of ninjitsu. Of course, since the erstwhile hero must only deal with a tiny sliver of an elven life, and mostly the battle aspects of it, none of the negatives come into play.

Of course Tolkien himself punched them down a bit, considering the elves of Mirkwood were nothing like that, and the Silmarillion casts some doubt on that "Eternal Wisdom" considering how much of the things were borked up by the elves sense of honor and issues.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I suppose you could read it as that, but at the same time it's kinda hard for me to get immersed like that when they fail to provide CSM anything regarding consistency anymore.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course Tolkien himself punched them down a bit, considering the elves of Mirkwood were nothing like that, and the Silmarillion casts some doubt on that "Eternal Wisdom" considering how much of the things were borked up by the elves sense of honor and issues.

Pffft. Wood elf pansies!

And look at where that Eternal Wisdom thing got the Eldar

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I look forward to modelling my next army of a million space marines. I'd have to live longer than Asurmen for that to happen (well, ok, maybe I could do it at Dante's age... a thousand marines a year for a thousand years seems plausible), but can you imagine the carrying cases it would take to transport that? We could play 40k on the deck of aircraft carriers. Of course, we'd have to live as long as the Eldar, because each turn would take years. And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

Assume individual variance, If we are accounting for every individual in the conlifct, error moving can be assumed to be the models.

He's a little faster than his comrades, though out of a million models, no biggie.

Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

 Juicifer wrote:
Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

Of course, that is the intention. I don't think that anyone disagrees with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are random abilities that are going to be better than others, and it doesn't change the fact that in 40k there are some combinations which are worthless while others are game breaking. Since there is not a surcharge for taking 2 correctly costed units in tandem, a rule change would be preferable to overcharging the two individual units on the *possibility* that they might be combined.

 Talys wrote:

Makumba wrote:
I think the problem with the overpowered/overcosted is in most cases not real. There were very few units realy overpowered in w40k in the last 3 editions I played. The eldar titan, the old necron ctan and the serpent. I can't think of any other overpowered ones. There is on the other hand a ton of overcosted and bad units. There are whole army books, which have unit after unit costing too much. This gives the false impression that anything good or normal is OP. As much as I dislike playing against eldar, lucky no necron players are here, their books are not overpowered. They are what all books should be. Multiple good toolbox units, most options viable, units with synergy in and outside of the codex they come from. All books should be like that. Why they are not, is a question GW should anwser.

That's kind of splitting hairs. If you say that there are a ton of overcosted (or bad) units, that everything else is undercosted. The cost of a unit is important only as a relative value to its alternatives. If a fairly costed wave serpent were 220 points and a wraith knight were 600 points, terminator squads, and wyches at their current point costs suddenly look fantastic.

I do totally agree with you that the Eldar codex is great by itself: there are many compelling units, reasonably coated, and pretty much nothing terrible. All codices should be written like this.

I think that WS and WK were and are priced right to play a 1500pts game. The problem is with other armies having both bad units and being priced for it as if there were not.
I got my hand on some epic rule books and there in the fluff sections I read about land raiders being super tanks and formations of those being able to take on titans. in w40k their points cost seems to point at the same thing, but not the efficiency. Almost everything in w40k is like that for most armies, and when suddenly an army pops up with a rules pack made the right way. Everyone cries OP and undercosted. I mean who in their right mind would buy a WK for 600pts when for a few more points one can have an eldar titan with better resilience twice the fire power at less then twice the cost etc.

Makumba wrote:

I think that WS and WK were and are priced right to play a 1500pts game. The problem is with other armies having both bad units and being priced for it as if there were not.
I got my hand on some epic rule books and there in the fluff sections I read about land raiders being super tanks and formations of those being able to take on titans. in w40k their points cost seems to point at the same thing, but not the efficiency. Almost everything in w40k is like that for most armies, and when suddenly an army pops up with a rules pack made the right way. Everyone cries OP and undercosted. I mean who in their right mind would buy a WK for 600pts when for a few more points one can have an eldar titan with better resilience twice the fire power at less then twice the cost etc.

I think the new WS is just fine. It's a very good DT, but it's also expensive. The old serpent's biggest problem was that it was a 60" firing range DT (effectively allowing you to spam it taking only troop slots) in a game where range is very important. The new Wraithknight has tools that no other faction has (ranged D), and awesome mobility. Plus, you can call it correctly costed, but then similar models like Imperial Knights, Dreadknights, and Riptides, as well as other Gargantuan MCs are overcosted, because given equivalent points, the WK will reliably win, and that shouldn't be.

Overall, I think the Eldar codex is actually excellent, because it's possible to build a balanced army where every unit feels like it has a purpose and is not a points tax. You'd be hard pressed to point at a unit and say, "these just suck" or "these are just way too expensive" in the way that people dislike terminators and land raiders.

So, the problem, really, is most of the other factions -- not Craftworld Eldar.

 Talys wrote:

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I look forward to modelling my next army of a million space marines. I'd have to live longer than Asurmen for that to happen (well, ok, maybe I could do it at Dante's age... a thousand marines a year for a thousand years seems plausible), but can you imagine the carrying cases it would take to transport that? We could play 40k on the deck of aircraft carriers. Of course, we'd have to live as long as the Eldar, because each turn would take years.

And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

I have around 10k points of Eldar, and it probably would like a 40k scale Epic battle if I were to ever play it all at once. Transport is big, we're talking large storage containers for that much stuff per side.

At that scale, movement trays and/or croupier's sticks! In such games, it's more about the sheer spectacle of having a lot of stuff on the board, not ticky-tacky stuff.

Spetulhu wrote:
Sadly the points aren't always that well calculated, but that's one area where GW hasn't always been alone. I remember the BattleValue points they used in FASA's BattleTech game at some point. Sure, it worked if you used the same tech base but once you took Clan mechs vs Inner Sphere mechs the clanners would easily slag the same points of IS forces most of the time.

WTF? Clan forces were always supposed to be half the tonnage of IS forces, that was in the book where they came out with the clan stuff. Things only got complicated when you started using IS forces using Star League era tech, and then you had to look at it from a point of how much (and what types) of tech were being used. And got more complicated if you where using MechWarrior and campaign rules, but then you are talking about home games.

Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

 Runic wrote:
Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

In practice, they almost always are.

 Runic wrote:
Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

The entire purpose of this thread is to point out that they are in fact - the same thing. Overpowered being a more general term whilst undercosted is a (slightly) more specific term (which has a less severe connotation) meaning the exact same thing. Furthermore the point I'm trying to make and should be abundantly clear to everyone - almost every issue of balance in 40k is related to under/over costing. Therefore - at least in terms of 40k the two terms are basically synonymous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

It's fun to speculate on these things. I'm really hoping that theres a formation that gives all marines relentless for free and tacticals can take 4 heavy weapons and devestators take 10.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?Maybe... though those situation are pretty hard to even imagine - I've never seen an issue in 40k that couldn't be fixed by working out a units price. The end result of all balance issues come down to damage/defense/utility for x price. If somethings price does not meet with it's abilities it is ether overpowered/underpowered. There really isn't any other way of looking at it.

For the most part, I agree - undercosted and overpowered are basically the same 99% of the time.

However, I think there are some abilities which are overpowered because there's really no way to cost them that would make them fair. Invisibility certainly comes to mind.

Regardless, I agree. If a unit is undercosted then it is, by definition, overpowered - since its power level is above what it should be for its point cost.

(I haven't read the entire thread, btw, so sorry if I'm repeating/reiterating others).

There are certainly cases where a unit/power/ability/wargear is just so broken it should not exist at all. Elements like that are not fun and shouldn't attempt to be balanced short of a total re-work of the concept.

However, for nearly everything else, point costs represent the power of a unit/power/ability/wargear. There's no fundamental difference between saying 'The point cost doesn't represent the strength of X' and 'The strength of X isn't represented well by the point cost'. If you're arguing that, what you're really doing is debating how something should be fixed, which can be done by either pointing it correctly or altering the ability to match the current price tag, or a combination of both.

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?Maybe... though those situation are pretty hard to even imagine - I've never seen an issue in 40k that couldn't be fixed by working out a units price. The end result of all balance issues come down to damage/defense/utility for x price. If somethings price does not meet with it's abilities it is ether overpowered/underpowered. There really isn't any other way of looking at it.

For the most part, I agree - undercosted and overpowered are basically the same 99% of the time.

However, I think there are some abilities which are overpowered because there's really no way to cost them that would make them fair. Invisibility certainly comes to mind.

Regardless, I agree. If a unit is undercosted then it is, by definition, overpowered - since its power level is above what it should be for its point cost.

(I haven't read the entire thread, btw, so sorry if I'm repeating/reiterating others).

The other 1% of the time I'd say the most correct/appropriate terminology is typically "unbalanced" rather than undercosted/overpowered/whatever.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


The other 1% of the time I'd say the most correct/appropriate terminology is typically "unbalanced" rather than undercosted/overpowered/whatever.

A fair point, and we also have great little qualifier words to describe the degree of overpowered or underpowered something is.

If you're a fan of Orwell, you could say that Scatter Bikes are Double Plus Overpowered.

Yeah, Undercosted != overpowered.

If there was a unit that says, "when you deploy this unit, you win the game" , it would always be overpowered . It wouldn't be under it's appropriate cost, because there is none, it's purely overpowered.

This is taking it to extremes, but you get the idea.
90% of the time, they are identical, something is overpowered for it's cost, because it is too cheap for what it does.

Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost.


Again though, regardless of the above, the two statements are different for a reason.

Although they describe the same situation (too much bang for too little buck)
The individual phrases provide context, If someone says "it's undercosted", they mean, keep the rules the same, charge more.
If they say "it's overpowered" they mean, keep the price the same, weaken the unit/rule.

The different phrases tell you about the users opinion on the situation that both phrases describe.

I agree. These 2 concepts are different, but are often related.

A unit can be overpowered because its undercosted. Examples: Riptide Ion Accelerator. Too cheap for what it does. If it was appropriately costed, it wouldn't be overpowered.

An overpowered unit that is costed about right: Imperial Knights. They are actually pretty easy to kill with multiple melta units that are a fraction of its cost. But it combines a lot of power in a focused package, at a single point on the battlefield it can apply almost irresistible force. The fact that it has many hard counters keeps its cost down.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Per my earlier example, 3-point Guardsmen might be undercosted, but they are certainly not overpowered. Same with 1-point Grots.

On the flip side, S7 AP2 Gets Hot! Plasma Pistols are not overpowered, but they are clearly overcosted at 15 points, but somewhat undercosted at 5 pts.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Only combi weapons are truly useful. The power weapons are meh.

"Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost."

My contention is that actually doesn't exist in 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Only combi weapons are truly useful. The power weapons are meh.

"Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost."

My contention is that actually doesn't exist in 40K.

I think it might be like certain abstract mathematical concepts, like how there is no such thing as a straight demand curve IRL, we just use the concept to get a point across.

So while there might be no unit that is truly overpowered at any price, the concept still exists such that we have to treat being OP and Undercosted as separate, but related, concepts.

Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units). Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units). Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

CSM doesn't care what the rest gets, give us the new decent terminators.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units).

Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

I do. GW will almost certainly have formation for 3 squads of Scouts / Terminators / Dreadnoughts with extra bonuses, along with a Chapter bonus if you take at least 3 Tactical Squads + other core units.

Nope. GW doesn't care. Play your Grey Marines, your Dark Marines, your Blood Marines. Just pay your $80 for the "improved" rules.

Well I think the biggest problem why some people disagree with the TS is simply cause they have another definition of overpowered.

In the TS definition (and mine as well) something is balanced (and hence not overpowered) if a unit has an average 50/50 chance of winning. With average I mean the average about anything (mission type, every other unit in the game, codex match-ups and so on). So it should be always possible to balance a unit by its point values.

Other people state that something is overpowered if it is extremely hard to kill, which makes a game against such a unit absolutely frustrating and boring (think of necron wraith, titans etc). While you can balance such a unit by adjusting points so that there is a 50/50 chance of winning, it will stil be a absolutely boring game if you throw tons of dice just to bring down a single unit. You can call that overpowered too, but I would rather call it bad game design. Same applies for some codex rock-paper-scissor-matches where a specific unit excells against some codices while it fails against others.

So its more a question how you define overpowered for yourself.

 Talys wrote:

 Juicifer wrote:
Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

Of course, that is the intention. I don't think that anyone disagrees with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are random abilities that are going to be better than others, and it doesn't change the fact that in 40k there are some combinations which are worthless while others are game breaking. Since there is not a surcharge for taking 2 correctly costed units in tandem, a rule change would be preferable to overcharging the two individual units on the *possibility* that they might be combined.

I'm not agreeing with the premise that under costed is universally overpowered, I'm merely pointing out that if 40k were ever a balanced game, than discussions such as this would be the stuff of wonderland tea parties.

A unit can be accurately costed, for the effect a single unit can have in game.
However, multiples of accurately costed units may have a synergistic bonus that makes the total cost of the multiple units under costed.

Some people refer to this as 'over powered'.(Rather than just under costed to make the definition between singular cost and synergistic bonuses.)

Most games counter this within the army composition lists.eg 0-1 or 0-2, or you have to take x number of common units before you can take a rare unit etc.

I only use the term 'overpowered' , when the effect of the unit is not within the scope of the game.
EG the unit is too powerful to result in enjoyable game play.

And under powered is where the unit has so little value in game, even giving it a value of 1 makes it over costed.There is no reason to take the unit what so ever.

That is just my take on it.

Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

Overpowering and game breakers are when there just way too powerful, tough or cheap beyond a resnoble margin.

Basicly need a full rewrite and looking at.

 jhe90 wrote:
Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

I'm pretty sure that's not what under coated means.

 vipoid wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Under coated just means they need a bump to make them abit more expensive, not brokenly overpowering but just abit too good vs others in there cost and category's. Just need a few points adding on, slight tweak.

I'm pretty sure that's not what under coated means.

yes repeating the obvious but some people out there see things in very strange ways

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Maybe people should buy the extremely large GW terrain pieces to hide their important behind, and play the missions with the GW Maelstrom (tm) deck that mitigates any tactical advantage of being able to shoot things.

Tactical objectives doesnt help you against 4 wraithknights... Trust me.