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'm getting ready for some serious Mathhammer. In 40K they have the MEQ. What are people using in 8th Edition WHFB for a standard of comparison?

Standard human:

4/3/3/3/3/1/3/1/7 Light Armor, Shield.

Ragnar4 wrote:Standard human:

4/3/3/3/3/1/3/1/7 Light Armor, Shield.

Thanks. Didn't think about armor/shield.

Never heard anyone make that comparison in WHFB. For it to be valid, it has to be either the median or the top of the bellcurve. It's neither.

Yes, those comparisons are all over the place in 40K. But the Core of each fantasy army are so vastly different that drawing a baseline is simply impossible. Cuz stats are just one, admittedly large, aspect.

Think of comparing:
-Saurus Warrior
-Bloodletter
-TK Skeleton Warrior
-Ogre Bull
-Dwarf Warrior

Those units are so different in terms of special rules, costs, stats and synergy with their base army that it's kind of useless to compare them outright. And certainly to compare them with a fictional baseline.

So you generally don't see that kind of mathammer (or at least I don't). It requires a bit more convoluted process to get to the same results. Like movement on Ogres and some Daemon units is cheap. It's expensive for Dwarfs and TK. Toughness is expensive for Elves, cheap for Beastmen and Greenskin. And you can't simply add up all the attributes, cuz some are more valuable than others, have a plateau value (like WS), valley value (like I), a highly situational value (like LD), etc.

It's not very mathammery, but at some point you have to just eyeball stuff. Is a +1 WS for 2 extra points worth it on a unit who will likely be ranged most of the time?

etc etc etc

DukeRustfield wrote:Never heard anyone make that comparison in WHFB. For it to be valid, it has to be either the median or the top of the bellcurve. It's neither.

Yes, those comparisons are all over the place in 40K. But the Core of each fantasy army are so vastly different that drawing a baseline is simply impossible. Cuz stats are just one, admittedly large, aspect.

Think of comparing:
-Saurus Warrior
-Bloodletter
-TK Skeleton Warrior
-Ogre Bull
-Dwarf Warrior

Those units are so different in terms of special rules, costs, stats and synergy with their base army that it's kind of useless to compare them outright. And certainly to compare them with a fictional baseline.

So you generally don't see that kind of mathammer (or at least I don't). It requires a bit more convoluted process to get to the same results. Like movement on Ogres and some Daemon units is cheap. It's expensive for Dwarfs and TK. Toughness is expensive for Elves, cheap for Beastmen and Greenskin. And you can't simply add up all the attributes, cuz some are more valuable than others, have a plateau value (like WS), valley value (like I), a highly situational value (like LD), etc.

It's not very mathammery, but at some point you have to just eyeball stuff. Is a +1 WS for 2 extra points worth it on a unit who will likely be ranged most of the time?

etc etc etc

Probably I'll cut it off at, say, #expected unsaved wounds vs a 40-model, 4-rank block (offensive and defensive), and not go into wounds per point. Just a really rough figure but better than nothing IMO.

MEQ came out of a tactical environment in 3rd ed 40K, where a poorly written ruleset caused most games to end up as wars of attrition between two static armies, and winning involved grinding down the enemy as quickly as possible, while the enemy in turn tried to grind you down in turn as quickly as possible.

In this environment, the only real thing that mattered was 'how quickly can my guys kill his guys?'

Somewhere along the way, people realised that in tournaments almost everyone was taking marine armies of one sort or another. That meant universally armies with Toughness 4 and a 3+ save. So the new question became 'how quickly can I kill guys with T4 and a 3+ save?"

Thing is, as 40K changed through 4th and now 5th ed, that question has changed a lot. Sure, there's still a crazy number of players out there with marine armies, but that tactical environment isn't there anymore so that you can build an army around static, ranged shooting alone and think that's enough to win. There's so many other things going on in the game now that the expected number of MEQs a unit can kill in a turn just disappears.

So it doesn't really have that much value in 40K today, and that's only more true in WHFB. There's no army that's vastly more common than all the rest. Combat is based on a lot more than the ability of the rank and file troops in a unit to kill each other. And more than any of that, WHFB doesn't really have a standard stat line - in a marine army everyone other than the terminators are T 4, with a 3+ save. In an Empire army you can have troops ranging from 1+ to no save, taken in any mix. You can't build a list around killing a specific set of stats, because any list you face will have a wide range of armour types.

sebster wrote:MEQ came out of a tactical environment in 3rd ed 40K, where a poorly written ruleset caused most games to end up as wars of attrition between two static armies, and winning involved grinding down the enemy as quickly as possible, while the enemy in turn tried to grind you down in turn as quickly as possible.

In this environment, the only real thing that mattered was 'how quickly can my guys kill his guys?'

Somewhere along the way, people realised that in tournaments almost everyone was taking marine armies of one sort or another. That meant universally armies with Toughness 4 and a 3+ save. So the new question became 'how quickly can I kill guys with T4 and a 3+ save?"

Thing is, as 40K changed through 4th and now 5th ed, that question has changed a lot. Sure, there's still a crazy number of players out there with marine armies, but that tactical environment isn't there anymore so that you can build an army around static, ranged shooting alone and think that's enough to win. There's so many other things going on in the game now that the expected number of MEQs a unit can kill in a turn just disappears.

So it doesn't really have that much value in 40K today, and that's only more true in WHFB. There's no army that's vastly more common than all the rest. Combat is based on a lot more than the ability of the rank and file troops in a unit to kill each other. And more than any of that, WHFB doesn't really have a standard stat line - in a marine army everyone other than the terminators are T 4, with a 3+ save. In an Empire army you can have troops ranging from 1+ to no save, taken in any mix. You can't build a list around killing a specific set of stats, because any list you face will have a wide range of armour types.

Then can you suggest another figure of merit for comparison purposes? Seems like there should be some way to quantify the effectiveness of a given unit, if not against all enemies then at least against a good range of them.

No such thing in fantasy. Best you have is comparison of Toughness, Strength and Leadership

Armywide everything has t3 except Dwarves, Lizardmen, Orcs (not Goblins) Ogres and Chaos Warriors (actual warriors of Chaos).
Armywide everything has s3 except Lizardmen, Demons, Chaos Warriors (actual Warriors only), Ogres.
Armywide ld is 7 for humans, 8 for elves, 9 for dwarves. Elite armies range 8-10, horde armies from as low as 2-7.
Monsters are mostly S5-T5 or S6-S6 3+ best save to no save at all.
Very few armies have exceptionally low or high stats and with the variety or armies I believe there is no "MEQ" in WHFB.

But all that is still meaningless without special abilities and cost.

So what, you're +1M -1T +1S -1LD than another unit at +2pts they have ASF you have KB. You can't just stick that in a calculator and say a > b.

In warhammer , size count more than individual stats.

so human , ogre , monstsrous

or something :3

Slightly off topic but as a new WHFB player I love that there is no "marine" style armies that every man and his dog seems to play.

Orcs? xD

Its not the most scientific way ever but if I'm comparing two units I'll run a mock battle of averages between them and see who wins that. I tend to stop once the break chance is between 65 - 70% or one side is consistently losing combat.

If I'm looking at just 1 unit I tend to make a few units from other armies for as close to the same points cost as what I'm making and run the battle scenario against them. Usually I do between 6 - 10 of these mock battles for a unit I'm thinking about taking.

Again not the most accurate way and it is taking place in a vacuum so its not indicative of what the unit can actually do but it does provide a good base line for me anyway.

~Zero~

The thing about those sorts of battles on a unit by unit basis is that Fantasy really does rely on army synergy a lot more than 40k does (for the most part).

Skaven slaves, for example, aren't going to be killing a whole lot when you compare them to just about any unit. Looking just at the numbers, you'd see slaves losing at every opportunity and no one would really consider them in their army. But reality is quite different when you realize the point of slaves isn't to kill stuff, but to tie stuff up for awhile while you shoot a bunch of stuff into that combat. Hence why most skaven armies take at least 1 giant slave block.

I usually rate my army against WS4, T4 armies, which is all too common in my area. If I fight someone who is actually merely WS3, T3, I get excited, because my abilities rise considerably. WS4 is all too common, as is T4, with nearly all armys having access to units of them, and nearly half the armies made up of them as their core troops.

I wouldn't say that at all. But a good point you stumbled on is: it matters who's in your area as to what is average.

If everyone is WoC and Daemons, high WS/Str/I will be everywhere.

LordOfTheSloths wrote:Then can you suggest another figure of merit for comparison purposes? Seems like there should be some way to quantify the effectiveness of a given unit, if not against all enemies then at least against a good range of them.

There isn't a single figure of merit. Any figure that would have so many if's, but's and provisos that it'd be almost entirely useless.

As was said many times there is no singular grouyp but the majority of the forces can be broken up into "groups".
Fodder – Swarmy cheap units who rely on numbers. (skavenslaves, goblins etc.)
Infantry – More basic Warriors with average stats at average cost (core troop type dudes of the 5-9 pt. range)
Elite infantry – Those have high killing potential or high survivability or both and cost quite a lot. (chaos warriors, most kinds of monstrous infantry etc.)
Fast cav – Those are easy to identify, they actually have it written in their rules, commion features include high speed and low armor.
Flankers – Fast units of cavalry or skirmishers meant to outmaneuver can be dangerous if ignored thus they're good at distracting. (those range greatly between armies from the humble skink to chivalrous pegasus knight)
Heavy cav – Dudes that resemble tank drivers more than riders, they usually hit like a bowling ball and brake just as hard. (Can easily be identified by GW pricing them like they're made of gold)
The rest are monsters and warmachines and other obvious things that fall into the "support units" category.

Right, but that's only a marginal breakdown of the unit types. Like Monstrous Infantry, Infantry, Calvalry, etc.

You'll have an easier time making a comparison of those. But a big point in the game is some armies will have "cheaper" items than others.

Comparing a single unit in a vacuum might tell you a bit, but not too much. If it costs more than its neighbors it's likely cuz it gives your army something it normally doesn't have (speed, high wounds, etc). So you got to pay out the nose for it. It helps you balance your army recognizing that stuff though.

But you can't make a baseline, because units are balanced individually. Armies are.