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.

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.