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.

I've been here on dakka for a while, many debates are opened about a troop or unit's value, the argument is based on getting your points worth from the stats.

I suggest to the panel that we're missing the point. That things construed as expensive or not worth it in many cases are overly priced or limited in viability because of the army it belongs to.

Take for example the discussion on the viability of the troops in the Tau army that's currently running, the argument that tau troops are inferior to ork boyz or imp guardsmen seems to me to be an examination of the merits of oranges vs apples. If your not including the other Overall aspects of the army (so, lets look at including a comparison on the merits of the hammerhead vs the battlewagon, the markerlight and JSJ vs Lumbering B and orders, the combination of kroot and FWs against tac marines and termies etc), these direct point/stat analogies of individual units are likely invalid, only a direct analysis of armies vs scenarios and win ratio would hold any ground at all (shaky ground at that).

Basically, even if we had two armies with identically equipped and statlined troops and one was paying double the amount for them than the other, no comparison can take place until you factor in both armies full strengths and weaknesses.

You are quite right. There can be a synergy between units which increases the value of both -- Tau Pathfinders plus Broadsides is a good example.

However, GW themselves say the points value reflects the in-game value, and they do not reference the synergy aspect. There should be some degree of correlation between the costs of Troops in different armies and their value.

Although I think your argument has some merit, points values between armies are still an important thing to consider.

Would an Eldar army with a farseer and then all-guardians do well against an IG army with an officer and all Guard squads? No, because the guard are functionally very similar, but cost much less.

willydstyle wrote:
Would an Eldar army with a farseer and then all-guardians do well against an IG army with an officer and all Guard squads? No, because the guard are functionally very similar, but cost much less.

Well, that's entirely my point, the eldar would not do as well, their similar stat but higher cost basic troops are priced that way since they have a wide range of elites and other basic troops (dire avengers are another choice, Imp Guard don't get similar to them, the eldar army is designed to be a light and mobile elite rather than the lumbering block of infantry and armour of the impG). You pay more in the eldar army for that basic statline guardian because it's an eldar army and not an impG army, because you get avatars, farseers, aspect warriors. Like KillKrazy said, it's the synergy of the army that's different. Guardians aren't meant to be massed in rank upon rank like Guardsmen, they are supposed to be few for objective holding etc. Eldar = sugical scalpel, ImpG = Sledgehammer. The overall 'whole' of the army works differently, If you made the Guardians the same point cost as the Guardsmen, you'd significantly increase the power of eldar armies and decrease the power of the impG.

Except for the fact that it just means that nobody takes Guardians... they're not balanced internally in addition to not being balanced with other books' troops.

And biovores are useless for tyrannids, havocs too expensive when factored against obliterators bang for buck, flash gits too expensive when you can field lootas. I am certainly agreeing with you that there are choices in every codex that are less effective or carry the perception of being a points sink, but I would say given the main troop type for the two eldar players I know is DAs, that perhaps the guardian is the 'when you have need of a troop type that's cheaper than the DA, so you can afford that second vyper' or somesuch, that's certainly how I've seen them fielded. I don't think the eldar army is suffering for the price of guardians? They seem to fare well enough, guardians are simply providing a cheaper troop alternative.

PS, not wanting to start a row about Eldar Guardians, just that this example is being forwarded.

Which I think is proof that GW doesn't assign points values based on comparable units in the same codex or compared to units in other codices.

@MeanGreenStompa

It is pretty obvious that GW doesn't design codecies with the "game as a whole" approach. Units are marginalized due to three reasons:

1. Good idea: Terrible implementation. Example: Biovores:

Cool idea, and reasonably effective at shooting the spore mines. The lethality of the spore mines leaves something to be desired however. This is an example of insufficient playtesting. That being said, at least the Biovore brings something to the Tyranids as it is the only indirect fire choice in the tyranid army.

2. Unit is outperformed by something else in the codex

Example: Flash gitz. Lootas are better able to fill the role occupied by both units.

3. Unit is useless: Unit doesn't really have any role in the army. What marginal roles it can perform are overshadowed by the points needed to make it perform that role.

Example: Guardians. Guardians are a really terrible unit that has no role. They are a slow moving, fragile, low leadership scoring unit with short ranged guns and now in V5, they are very expensive for their statistics at 8 points. They can not reliably perform in an AT role even though they can be kitted with a move and fire heavy weapon, as their low BS (and high cost of the gun) makes this very inefficient. They can be made semi-resilient by maxing the squad size and adding a warlock, but their low LD and general ineffectiveness in HTH means that they still can't hold objectives due to the new combat resolution rules. Their short ranged weapons pack a punch, meaning they excell in close range firefights, however, their low armor and toughness means they usually have insufficient numbers to make an impact by the time they are in range. This can be mitigated by buying them a transport, but this makes an already overpriced unit, extremely overpriced, and supremely inefficient compared to the eldar specialist shooting units.

I do take excpetion to your characterization that Havocs are useless:

Havocs: Havocs are the only place to get balistic weapons en-masse (HB and Autocannon). They also have the option to take 4 special weapons and load into a rhino or landraider. 10 Havocs w/ 4x Heavy Bolter or 4 Plasmagun = same price as 3 obliterators. Havocs are also more resilient vs Low AP S8+ weapons. Obliterators are most useful in a move-and-fire AT and anti heavy infantry role. Havocs are more appropriate vs. Hordes or used as a fast rapid response high firepower unit - and are able to fill a role outside of the one provided by Obliterators. Definitely not a bad unit.

keezus wrote:@MeanGreenStompa

It is pretty obvious that GW doesn't design codecies with the "game as a whole" approach.

I do take excpetion to your characterization that Havocs are useless:

I certainly agree GW does not design codices well or with huge consideration to what's gone before, as I've posted on the forums here, codex creep and differing perception of the game by different authors shows up time and again (whilst the problem exists to a certain level in 40k atm, the poor buggers playing fantasy having to deal with the daemon armys must be furious). I also agree there are things within codices that are more or less appealing.
My point of contention is that we are constantly comparing stat for stat on things from different codices of different army types and citing this comparison as a reason for point alteration and that we may be mistaken in that.
Say army A has 4 types of tank choice, each with it's own points value depending on weaponry etc and Army B has only one tank choice, the one Army B tank has an exact statline equal in on of the tanks of Army A, yet the points cost of the tank in Army B is higher for no good reason, when we then look at the rest of the army, we find that Army B also possesses elite jump infantry and infiltrating elite infantry, something Army A does not have, the dynamic of this balances out the higher points cost of the tank for Army B, Army B is not a tank heavy army, it is a more cc infantry driven army that has the option to provide some limited backup.

Please don't take exception btw, I was using havocs as an example since I've read much on the army lists here from chaos players insisting points are better spent on Oblits. There are no chaos players in my playing circle, was just picking some units from the top of my head.

If all an army fought was other armies made up the same codex, then comparing a unit only to other units in the codex makes sense. Since an army fights armies made up of other codices, game balance must be at least partially designed around an army gaining equal value on the battlefield for equal points spent. Thus comparing Guardians and Guardsmen and Ork Boyz and Firewarriors. Some of these choices are obvious decent or good buys, and some are not, and not because of other units in the same book, but because of the other units that exist in the game from different books.

On the topic of biovores. I think a point that some are missing is that tyranids are not really meant to have a long ranged weapon capable of mass destruction. They are a cc army by design. Of course they will still contain some fire support, but by making the biovore overly shooty, it doesnt really fit with the tyranid theme, and certainly would make them a much more powerful army.

Of course this is just one example, but I can see how it would act as a kind of template for other armies as well.

@MeanGreenStompa: I understand what you are saying about points factored into army synergy - but in practice - it doesn't work.

1. GW doesn't have many units that encourage army synergy. This is beginning to change, but all the "army" changing units are stupidly underpriced, as the GW rules writers clearly have no idea how to price "global" abilities.

2. GW lets the players design their own armies. Since short of artifically forcing certain units to be used via force organization, GW can't control what goes into a player's army. Having "discount" or "highly efficient" units in a codex encourages spam of those units as opposed to "patching a weakness" or "encouraging synergy".

Using the Tau codex as a case in point:

Vespid Stingwings: anti-heavy infantry. These have above average movement but otherwise, mediocre stats, low rate of fire, poor leadership. Tau have precious little high AP weapons outside of battlesuits, and by your logic, they should pay to get their high AP, as they have loads of low AP, high strength small arms.

Kroot: Tau HTH - fights a bit like an Ork, but for many time the points. By your logic, as the Tau don't have any HTH troops, they should pay a premium for HTH as they have lots of shooting. While passable in HTH, they are absolutely miserable at everything else, when outside of forests.

This leads to highly inefficient units which actually HURT the army's primary focus by diverting huge amounts of points to patch weaknessess. This is why in most army lists, the inefficient units are eschewed - and the effiecent units are SPAMMED.