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.

You'll have to excuse me as i'm pretty new to WHFB and WH in general. I do understand that do to the complexity of the game it will never be completely "balanced" but what I don't understand is why people compare one troop type to another from another army.

It seems that anytime a unit starts being discussed someone will say something like "Well that Lizardmen Saurus warrior is good, but look at the Chaos Warrior, they are so much better and they cost 5 points less." (I don't know if this a true comparision i'm just making something up).

Shouldn't we stick to comparing an army to another army and not compare individual troops? Maybe i'm wrong but doesn't GW try and balance the armies. For example maybe it's more expensive for the lizardmen standard warrior vs the chaos warriors but the lizardmen get a cheaper and better wizard. When people compare units to each other it makes me curious if we want all units to be exactly the same and the models would just but there for aesthetic purposes.

So why do people compare troops to each other? And does GW balance armies against each other instead of individual troops?

You can compare to some extent, but there's a bigger context that units need to be looked at to get a sense of whether they're really priced 'fairly' or not.

There's a similar phenomenon in Starcraft. People will say "Well X isn't as good as Y, my race is underpowered!" The inevitably maddening but true retort is, "Different races are different."

Everyone is convinced that the grass is greener in other people's yards.

 Micky wrote:
Everyone is convinced that the grass is greener in other people's yards.

Especially when marauders where 4pts and had 1pt Great Weapons/Flails

NickF509 wrote:
Shouldn't we stick to comparing an army to another army and not compare individual troops? Maybe i'm wrong but doesn't GW try and balance the armies. For example maybe it's more expensive for the lizardmen standard warrior vs the chaos warriors but the lizardmen get a cheaper and better wizard. When people compare units to each other it makes me curious if we want all units to be exactly the same and the models would just but there for aesthetic purposes.

Basically yes. To use a 40k equivalent, people often gripe that a Grey Hunter is very cheap compared to a Tactical Marine, when it is essentially a Tactical Marine + a bunch of extra benefits and options. What's often overlooked is how Grey Hunters work in the army as a whole.

Concerning Fantasy, I still see gripes about Zombies being too expensive when compared to Skavenslaves who fulful the same role, but better. What isn't taken into consideration in that gripe is that Zombies are designed around the key mechanic of Vampire Counts - raising models back. Suddenly Zombies are rather good for their cost, because you'll generally be casting Invocaiton every turn, gaining 2D6 + caster level back. Not to mention, units in armies that are significantly different to the army as a whole pay a tax for being so different, since they might fill a gap the army was designed to have, but were included as an option for people who really want the gap filled.

However, it is, quite simply, much, much easier to simply gripe about a single unit compared to a similar unit in another army than go into a full analysis of the unit, its position and role in the army, and whether it pays a tax for being that type of unit.

I say that a lot, you need to be careful comparing one UNIT to another. Since it's armies that are balanced and not their components.

But there's the old saying, you can't compares apples and oranges. But these are all apples. They are fighting on the same maps. Under the same BRB rules. With the same point requirements. Against one another. They are as close to being comparable as possible.

I'd say usually when the consensus of "the community" says a unit is OP or UP, they are usually right. You will see it in tournaments and such. Call it market forces/capitalism. If something is cheaper than it's value, people will buy it. The converse is also true.

So while you have take direct 1:1 comparisons with a grain of salt, it's an okay starting point.

A unit's cost should be a reflection upon their role in the book (Marauders=cheap, plentiful chaff in an army with negligible shooting). Cost compared to an Empire swordsman was ridiculous in 7th, as Marauders were cheaper, with better stats, marks, and better toys. They had no real shooting though, and thus had back up of only other melee troops. Yes, we all know 7th edition Marauders were TOO low, but they should be sitting at about 8 ppm with a mark and GW, as opposed to the 5 1/2-6 we had before, and the 10-11 we have now. You have to balance the comparison between how they are against other similar troops, but also the role they fill in their own book, including shooting support, magic buffs, additional equipment, etc, etc. Hard to balance, but other than Marauders being too high in cost now (everyone has been in agreement on this), 8th has had some seriously fair pricing for comparison between books.



*this is not including the ridiculously low costs of certain units that seem to crop up in a bunch of places: Skullcannons, Ironblaster Cannons, Manglers/Pump Wagons, few others.

I didn't see the OP ask if Marauders were overpriced (especially cuz they aren't, "everyone has been in agreement on this"). Or hint that he was in the slightest interested on that subject. There's plenty of threads on it. Hijack another thread.

Because it is easier to make abstract comparisons than analyze the multitude of army combinations and synergy. It takes months before there is concrete evidence on how troops will peform.

DukeRustfield wrote:
I didn't see the OP ask if Marauders were overpriced (especially cuz they aren't, "everyone has been in agreement on this"). Or hint that he was in the slightest interested on that subject. There's plenty of threads on it. Hijack another thread.

I think he was just using it as an example of comparing unit to unit.

It does give a good baseline of how good the models are. If you fill your army with the same model as another model but you pay a lot more then them for your moddels means you can not fight sutch and army in the same way as they fight you.

This will not work in vacume. A good example would be tomb kings tomb guards who are just outclassed by the vampier count grave guards. The stats are the same. Tomb Guard have better leadership (not important in an undead army) the grave guards have heavy armour. For 2 points the tomb guard gets halberds and not a very high innisiative, while graveguard get heavy weapon (hell yes!).

In Tomb Kings though, you have axess to the prince, witch will make tomb guards better then graveguards. Although graveguards are better. Micor-maxro etc. But it is a sound analys to compareson. If vampier counts do not perform to good with grave guards, you might not perform well with tomb guard.

You something is wrong when your skeletons were priced 10 points for spears and light armour when tomb kings had their last books and state troops were 5 points cheaper.

Indeed.