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.

How can you have a Tyranid Spore Mine cost 10 points while a SM costs, what 16 points and doesn't have random movement, weapons to shoot at range, armour saves etc etc, for all of 6 points more?

It's GW logic is all I can think off.

They arent supposed to be equal, they are for different armies, please compare sw termies with sheilds vs necron lychguard with sheilds ect. Its not a black and white affair 10pts doesnt buy you x stats and x gear...if it did there would be no point in different armies.
Plus strangth 8 insta jib's wraiths you need strength 10 to own TWC the same way, that in its self is almost all the balence required.
The game may not be terrably well balenced but i dont think SW are overly ones to be worrying about that considering the basic troops pts cost too load out and general versitility of builds you can draw from there codex, they are imo the best current marines dex.

 Redbeard wrote:


....snip.....

Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.

GW has, using the method you describe above, blurred this line. Rather than attempt to create distinction based on availability, they also (whether by design or through incompetence) create distinction through cost. But rather that create distinction, all this does is penalize players for "making the wrong choice". So, for example, a player wants to play a firepower heavy infantry MEQ army, and picks Codex: Space Marines. He builds his force, and pays a premium for his dev squads, compared to taking the same models but making them Space Wolves (who get Long Fangs dirt cheap). That's not good design. If he wasn't supposed to have dev squads, why were they available to him? And if he's reasonably allowed to take them, why should his army be at a disadvantage on the tabletop because he chose to use them?

''Balance is based on cost. If we bring the same number of points to the table, our game should be fairly even.''
IMO this is a logical fallacy within warhammer, points is a tool to help create balance but not the final answer to balance and if it was, the game would be too one dimensional.
If I spend all my points on troops then you spend all your points on artillery, I’m in trouble on the battle field. Now that’s not the points fault, it’s not the games fault, it’s the players.
You attempt to construct a balanced force from the tools given to you, i.e. your army book, you can even add in a further army book to this and generic fortifications. The books are designed to be diverse and bring different methods to the table, you touched on it yourself above; availability within a codex is what drives its cost not its actual strength but its relative strength within the codex. Yes the game suffers from being heavily fragmented, coming out one at a times ruels change after rules change and having variant authors and I’m certainly not in this thread to tell the world that warhammer is the pinnacle of balance, it’s not that would be a total lie, but I feel a lot of people over state the flaws and don’t fully understand the basic mechanic for costing, I’ve seen a lot of threads with people comparing like to like and then complaining at its differing price, without reading between the lines, IMO you just can’t do that.

You can't put units in isolate circumstances (my 3 vs. your 3).

You have to look at them in many contexts - for example, in a game just this weekend, a squad of wraiths got wiped out easily by basic shooing - why? because they are only t4, and a 3 save is just a 3 save when you are hitting them with 20 bolter shots.

Their toughness and common save failed them.

They don't have grenades, and suffer from when when charging into cover. they become int 1.

Also, when facing any opponents who are more than one model deep, the coils just don't work, so they are situational..

Finally, never underestimate they shall know no fear...it is amazing....wriaths get swept very easily and marines cant.

Overall necrons are terrible in CC, low int, not many attacks, no grenades for the most part, etc.

Are they in some specific circumstances better than TWC?
Sure.

But I am 100% confident you can find where either your TWC or any other unit in your book is better than something more expensive in a specific comparison.

Oh, and no, they don't get reanimation rolls...

I think the balance with Wraiths comes from the rest of the armies near totally lack of offensive CC ability. Yes we have one of the best and most resilient cc units in the game but at most you can take 18 models of them and all be it very effective, their are other armies that can operate effectively in combat across their entire range.

The same argument comes up with MSS as everyone feels they are OP, however Necrons lack the ability to take many options available to allot of other armies as CC weapons, we simply have the ability to use yours against you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

davethepak wrote:


Finally, never underestimate they shall know no fear...it is amazing....wriaths get swept very easily and marines cant.

Wraiths don't get swept, they are fearless, they only get swept if you cast the psychic power which removes fearless. The name escapes me.

I think most peoples' quotes cover off on the issues, specifically, the lack of comparability.

In particular, wraiths really excel at taking out expensive, heavy infantry. 5 wraiths with coils will probably destroy 5 cavalry (especially if the wraiths get the charge).

But 5 wraiths against an equivalent points cost of Grey Hunters would struggle. Against Blood Claws even worse.

As a necron, I totally agree that wraiths are under-priced (more so when they DON'T have whipe coils). I also feel that Thundercav are bit overpriced. But I feel the comparison isn't right.

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

I may be wrong here, but isn't space wolves a fourth edition codex? I assume everything was a skosh more expensive back then. As for the wraiths, they don't have re animation protocols and don't have terminator armor which as far as I know you still get to use. ( don't have my necron codex near me so I may be wrong about that. )

Space Wolves is an early 5e codex.

Well, in my Necron army I usually run 2 units of Wraiths. But I don't use whip coils. These points can be better spent elsewhere.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

yes drrrr because everything needs to be the same drrr, that's exactly what people are saying drrr.

or GW could just balance the fricken game properly or atleast try. You know, models that are of equal strength should be around the same number of points. or if one of those models gets a nice special ability it would then cost more than the other. OMG, what a concept.

Missing my point...

Models that happen to be of "equal strength" shouldn't necessarily cost the same. Different armies may use or prioritize those units differently, so the value would be relative to the rest of the army.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

kb305 wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
Because different forces are supposed to work in different ways. A simple example I think is relevant here is that of ehavy weapon costs. A particular weapon tends to be less expensive in Troops choices compared to Heavy Support choices, becasue it is assumed that the heavy support unit will be able to get more utility out of the weapon. The same could be said of a particular stat-line for units in different codexes.

no, just no.

GW are crap game designers. An unbalanced release is expected, many games are unbalanced but good companies atleast patch things up constantly work towards better balance and a better game. GW leaves things broken for years or break things on purpose to sell models.

Stop whining. If the game stinks so bad, why do you play?

The OP is typical of gamers right now. Every army now has to be the same as the others. It explains why a game like Flames of War typically resists power gamers, because Finland is not equal to Germany or the British. Necrons don't do assault well, as their shooting is preferable. So, can I get a Tyranid warrior equivalent troop in my Dark Angels?

I never once said anything about all the armies being the same? What you'll notice is everyone else is engaging in a normal discussion, whilst your first approach has been to accuse people of whining and then putting words in their mouth. Take a look at yourself mate is all I'd say.

You NEED some kind of internal balance. The points system is meant to achieve that. I don't expect it to be perfect, I don't expect units to be directly equivalent across codexes. I do expect some kind of balance when the game is taken as a whole though.

What would expect of a points based game? If two people turn up to a game with equal numbers of points - their armies should be of equal strength and ability (depending on what units they've gone for and what tactics they pursue). That isn't the equivalent of 'the same'. One could go assault whilst another goes shooting, or assault, or with loaded out elites choices - but the armies should be a match. Not the same as directly comparable, but roughly a match for each other.

As it is, 2000 pts of SW/Crons vs 2000pts of Sisters/Tyranids - I'm giving that to SW/Crons 90% of the time (that is a complete guesstimate) given equal player ability and equal rolling, because the armies are better and that's that.

I know it's just all about selling models at the end of the day. Which I can deal with I guess, I understand they are a business.

Which is why they're introduced ridiculously powerful fliers - sod their game, they need to sell lots of shiny new £40+ models to gamers who already have large armies and aren't buying much. So let's force them to either buy flyers, or a crappy Aegis Defence Line if they want to remain competitive. It's a good business model, and a stinking attitude.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Missing my point...

Models that happen to be of "equal strength" shouldn't necessarily cost the same. Different armies may use or prioritize those units differently, so the value would be relative to the rest of the army.

No, you're missing the point.

If it is possible to make an army with a set of models, then those are the models you are using, and it doesn't matter what else is in your codex that you could have used. If you and your opponent show up to a game with the same models, same stat lines, and so on, then the game should be close to even. (Discounting things like terrain placement, obviously). When both players show up with the same models, with the same rules, but one player gets an extra unit or two because of how badly the points in the game are balanced, there's clearly a problem.

This isn't asking that everything be the same. It's possible to create incredibly varied factions in a game without sacrificing balance to do so. You use the availability of units to do so. And, Flames of War does this. Sure, Finland isn't Germany, and doesn't get Panzers, but what they do get, they get at a reasonable cost, so that when Finland plays against Germany in a game, it's not a guaranteed stomping.

How a unit should work within a given force is an especially stupid argument, given that just about everyone can take allies now.

Imagine, if you would, that instead of saying Tau don't get a good CC unit, they instead said, Tau get an Avatar statline, but for twice the points the eldar pay, because that CC ability should be more valuable to Tau. Do you think anyone would ever play this unit? Of course not, because it's stupidly priced. Instead, Tau players who wanted that sort of thing in their army would ally in the Eldar and use the Avatar.

Saying a unit is worth more to one army than another is an argument that went out the window as soon as Allies were introduced.

Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

Canoptekwolf Cavalry.
I'm sure that would make people happy.
Doesn't matter what army you play, because all the points and stats are exactly the same.
The only difference is the model.. Well.. until people start complaining that the model-size unbalances the game.

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.
That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

kb305 wrote:
yes drrrr because everything needs to be the same drrr, that's exactly what people are saying drrr.

Well yeah, that is exactly what people are saying in here. Aren't you reading the same thread?

or GW could just balance the fricken game properly or atleast try. You know, models that are of equal strength should be around the same number of points. or if one of those models gets a nice special ability it would then cost more than the other. OMG, what a concept.

It's balanced enough to have fun.
Don't expect a perfect tournament-worthy balance, because you will never have that.

And no, models of the same strength don't need equal points.
Why not? Because you cannot calculate the strength of a model that easily.

Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

Canoptekwolf Cavalry.
I'm sure that would make people happy.
Doesn't matter what army you play, because all the points and stats are exactly the same.
The only difference is the model.. Well.. until people start complaining that the model-size unbalances the game.

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.
That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

Someone grabbed the Slippery Slope Fallacy and slid all the waaay down.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Someone grabbed the Slippery Slope Fallacy and slid all the waaay down.

Well, you have to try something if facts and logic isn't working.

This discussion will get nowhere if people don't understand that they are different units with different purposes.

Kangodo wrote:Ooh God, the arguments in this thread are terrible.
Let's just remove the necron codex, copy the Space Wolves one and put Canoptek or Necron before every unit name!

I don't think anyone has advocated making them identical. Strawman much?

In short:
Things can't be balanced, things will never be balanced.

And so no attempt should be made? Perfectly clean air will never happen, so I guess we should have no pollution controls. We'll never have 100% uncorrupt politicians, so I guess we don't need any ethics standards. We'll never cure all the diseases, so what's the point in trying? Excuse me if I'm not swayed by your argument.

That's because things are different and that is what keeps the game interesting.
A shooty army isn't going to pay the same amount for a CC-beast as a melee army, deal with it.

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Don't you get it? You can't design a codex in a vacuum and allow allies, because all that will do is get people to use the allies when they're less expensive than the units from the primary codex. Maybe that design philosophy worked pre-allies (and, I don't believe it did, but I'll entertain the notion for sake of argument), but once you allow allies into the game, the idea of separate internal balance and external balance goes away.

Don't expect a perfect tournament-worthy balance, because you will never have that.

As stated earlier, it's not tournament players who suffer from lack of balance, they simply adjust and only use the best units. It is casual players who pick models based on appearance and/or fluff that suffer from GWs inability to get the point costs right. And I don't think we're asking for perfect, but a little closer to reasonable would be nice. Every codex released in the last five years has had units in it that are so poorly priced that they're either so bad as to never be used, or so good as to preclude anything but them from being used.

And no, models of the same strength don't need equal points.
Why not? Because you cannot calculate the strength of a model that easily.

Wait, are you now arguing that it's too hard to do, so it shouldn't be attempted? You know there are people out there who are applying advanced mathematics to really complex problems, like stock markets. And you think that using a little bit of math to solve for maybe 1000 units is too hard? Well, obviously for the people GW hires, but it's not nearly as complicated as you're making it sound. Especially for the blatantly obvious cases.

Kangodo wrote:This discussion will get nowhere if people don't understand that they are different units with different purposes.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

 Redbeard wrote:
I don't think anyone has advocated making them identical. Strawman much?

No, but people DO complain about every stat/item that is different.

And so no attempt should be made? Perfectly clean air will never happen, so I guess we should have no pollution controls. We'll never have 100% uncorrupt politicians, so I guess we don't need any ethics standards. We'll never cure all the diseases, so what's the point in trying? Excuse me if I'm not swayed by your argument.

Perfect air will never be achieved, so we should be striving to near-perfectly clean air.
But there is a point where the air is so clean that you can only forbid people to breath out in order to 'clean' it even more.

The same goes for Codices!
The balance is fine overall, making things too similar is a line that they shouldn't cross.
And we are reaching that line when people are complaining that a melee-bomb from a shooty codex is cheaper than some random FA-unit from a Space Marine-codex.

Are you going to tell me that Necrons beat Space Wolves because Wraiths are cheaper than TWC?

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Tau are a shooty army, allies do not change that.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

I hope you do know the difference between Space Wolves and Necrons, right?

Kangodo wrote:
Why do they need to be equal?
They are different armies and the units have different purposes.

It's not about TWC vs Wraiths.
It's about Space Wolves vs Necrons!

This.

Kangodo wrote:

And so you don't understand how allies work? There is no such thing as a "shooty army" anymore. Tau can ally with orks, eldar, blood angels, space wolves, chaos daemons... Is that a shooty army?

Tau are a shooty army, allies do not change that.

No, Tau, as a codex, is a selection of shooty units. An army is what you field on the table. An all Tau army may be shooty, but allies do indeed change that, as Tau allied with Chaos Daemons are now fielding a ton of non-shooty units.

And this is where your argument falls apart. So you say that a shooty army should pay more for a beatstick combat unit. But because they can take allies, they can get a beatstick combat unit for the price that it would cost in a non-shooty codex. All increasing the cost of a combat unit in a shooty codex does is make it so no one takes it. It doesn't prevent the shooty army from filling the same niche with a cheap unit from an allied codex.

Please enlighten us, what are the different purposes that TW cavalry and Wraiths serve?

I hope you do know the difference between Space Wolves and Necrons, right?

You stated that these two units served different purposes. Yes, the base codex that they're taken from are different, but how does the purpose that you'd take these units for differ? They're both fast-moving resilient units that cannot hold objectives, and while TWC may have pistols, anyone using them as a shooty platform is doing-it-wrong. The purpose for which one would take either of these units is identical. They're there to charge the opponent, kill scoring units and engage high-priority threats in assault. They each offer the potential to escort a fighty HQ across the table. They may come from different books, their parent army's may operate differently, but these two units are as close to identical in purpose as you find in this game. As such, it's perfectly reasonable to compare the cost and effectiveness of each. Afterall, there are several codexes that can take either as allies, and so knowing which fills this assault role better is a legitimate question.

TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

Honestly the answer to this is simply matt ward wrote one book and didn't write the other one.

 juraigamer wrote:
Honestly the answer to this is simply matt ward wrote one book and didn't write the other one.

Yes, the other one was written by Phil Kelly, who also brought us 4th ed Eldar.


Edited grammar.

Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

Ward didn't write two of the three strongest Codices of Fifth though (IG/SW).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Oddly enough, both were the OP codex during their time.


Someone complaining about GKs or Necrons? Just play 4th edition skimmer hammer and watch true tears flow.

So if Kelly was the cheesemeister of 4th ed and Ward was the cheesemeister of 5th ed...does that mean Cruddace will be the cheesemeister of 6th ed?

Ward didn't write two of the three strongest Codices of Fifth though (IG/SW).

He wrote 2 of the 4 strongest (GK and crons). It counts!

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
TWC and Wraiths are very different CC units.

TWC are meant to beat the crap out of everything, and are priced to match.


Wraiths are meant to beat up units with little to no melee capability, and be extremely durable at the same time.

TWC are more expensive because they are better. T5, same invuln, and Str10 AP2 attacks.

The S10 AP2 attacks can also 1 hit kill a wraith. The wraith has a 3++, but once it fails, the wraith is killed.

Now, can the wraith instantly kill TWC with S6?

You have to BUY the powerfist...you're both talking about it like it comes intrinsically. It doesn't, and that is the difference. The Wraith gets STR6 and a 3+ invuln within it's points cost of 35pts. It costs 100pts for a TW with StormShield & PF....

They have comparable movement rules, the same BS/WS/Wounds. They have comparable init if we consider the cumulative impact of whipcoils and powerfist equipped TWC...

So the TWC gets 1 more Toughness (people are really over-egging that...), and Leadership of 2 points less. They both get rend. TWC get hammer.

We're talking a difference of 65 POINTS. Is the TWC 3 times as good as the wraith in your opinion?