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.

Wounds appears to be the only constant across the board. So I suggest going forward games set by amount of wounds per side as the go to for determining a game points limit.

Example: Brian and Timmy want to play a game. They both agree on a 100 wound per side game. Timmy plays chaos, so brings a bloodthirster worth 14 wounds, a sorceror worth say 6 wounds, ten chaos knights with say 3 wounds each, 30 marauders worth one each, and ten warriors on foot worth two wounds each. Brian is playing orcs. He has a warboss on a boar for 6 wounds, two goblin wizards worth 3 each. Three trolls with 4 wounds each. A chariot worth 6 wounds, ten black orcs worth 2 wounds each, twenty orcs with sword and board at on each, and thirty goblins with bows at one each. Both are equivalent in wounds.

Now this system isn't perfect. And obviously there will be under and overcosted units. Belakor strikes me as undercoated at 8 wounds. And all the examples I made up top were conjecture at cost since I haven't seen them yet. But this at least makes sense to me. What do you think?

I think going off wounds as the vase can at least be a good starting point for trying to balance it somewhat. Even if this is GW's finger to the competitive community, ehim they seem to blame for their slowing sales from bad word of mouth comparing them to " inferior" games like malifeau infinity and x wing. Every time the community gets together to balance 40 k for tournaments they do things like put out a new knight book, or the retardedly powerful skyhammer formation.

The more factors you add the more people disagree. What you price at twenty someone else will argue for 18. Simpler is probably better in this case, even if it scews in favor some underpriced units.

 The Shadow wrote:
At this stage, the easiest way I can see to balance the game is by using the formations at the bottom of each compendium as, to me, each formation seems roughly the same power level as every other. If you and your opponent both use the same number of formations and that each unit in the formation only has the minimum about of models it's allowed and that you don't upgrade your leader to have a mount (i.e. Dreadlord on Black Dragon) then the game should be more or less equal. And then, of course, you can agree with your opponent that you'll take one unit of 20 models each, or that you'll both take a leader with a dragon. It's restrictive, but the best way I can see for people to get an even game going.

You cant take a game, with thousands of useable models, and boil it down to a few cookie cutter formations with no variations to seek balance. It would get extremely old extremely fast. Balance has to come to the whole game or none of it. Wounds as points cost for your army is the closest thing we have.

Summon abilities could be nerves to say d6 +2. As for some units being better coated than others, how is that a remotely new thing for GW?

Captyn_Bob wrote:
Summoning looks like a double edged sword tho. They don't count for army size but do count for casualties. So if you aren't careful you could end up taking 200% casualties and losing by a mile (if you don't table your opponent within the time of the game)

Summoning in a match where wounds determines your points cost should have a high drawback, since if you are playing 100 wounds, and you summon 20 extra skeletons, thats a pretty huge bonus. I would like to see it toned down to d6+2 or so for the purposes of being balanced in a game where wounds count is your points value for sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Colehkxix wrote:
1 Saurus Warrior isn't worth 1 Temple Guard.

1 Skavenslave isn't worth 1 Stormvermin.

It's actually the case that 1 Temple Guard/Stormvermin is worth 2 Saurus Warriors/Skavenslave.

Wounds don't work for balancing.

GW has always had strictly better options in the game. If this was adapted for tournaments, something as simple as making the temple guard and stormvermin 2 wounds each with no other changes could fix this. Either way, its still better by miles than what we have now, which is the laughable idea of agreeing with random pickup games what constitutes fair for both sides.

 thejughead wrote:
Just use 8th and End Times points

8th ed points cost dont take into account wargear upgrades, or the monstrous creatures being less effective at lower wounds.

 thejughead wrote:
Because using wounds or any other fudge method is any better?

well at least they were made for this edition. 8th edition stats and points values all take things into account like drastically reduced armor saves from multiple different ways, not just rending, but high strength as well. Or the fact that wizards were far more powerful. It is just too far removed to be viable anymore.