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.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

I'll be honest, I hadn't thought of something like that. But that's not the kind of thing GW usually does.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

I think I would still argue that the Rhino of Doom doesn't represent any distinction between OP and undercosted.

Sure, it is very powerful in certain situations and useless in others. By the same note, Scatterbikes are very powerful against most targets, but can't scratch AV14. Are Scatterbikes therefore costed appropriately, but OP? I don't think so.

A better distinction may be in describing a codex vs. describing a unit. Units can be undercosted, overcosted, or appropriately costed. A codex's ability to spam undercosted units leads to an over-powered codex.

Hmm, I recognize this units is too powerful given the rules for it, but I don't want to imply that GW might be at fault in any shape or fashion.

"It's just undercosted! See, GW's always trying to give us bargains! "

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree. Overpowered by definition equals undercosted. There are only three states possible for a unit: properly pointed, overcosted, and undercosted. Undercosted by definition means that the unit gets too many game effects for the price you pay to field it. Units can be only slight undercosted, making them slightly overpowered. Some units are groslly undercosted, making them grossly overpowered.

No, I disagree with this. Not everything can be fixed by adjusting points. It is possible to make units simply too hard to kill, or create combinations which have no statistical possibility of being beat. Some things just shouldn't be in the game.

For instance, let's say you have a 4 different ways to avoid damage with a 2+ roll. Each is ok by itself, and be properly costed, but combine them all, and it's no longer possible to kill the unit. The game should not allow such a combination, because the combination is far more powerful.

The cost of such a unit would just be so high as to not be practical. Everything should have a fair cost.

But if there is no fair cost for a unit, then it can only be considered overpowered. For example any unit that cannot be destroyed due to various game effects will never be pointed correctly or fairly. As such it can only be considered overpowered.

This is especially true when some abilities get combined either by accident or on purpose, it doesn't matter if it is situational, the fact that it can happen is what gives it the OP label.

As I said, the fair cost might make it untenable in the game.

But there is no fair cost for something that is so powerful it breaks the game. Even considering a game like 40K where the point limit can go as high as the two players agree to.

 Jayden63 wrote:
But there is no fair cost for something that is so powerful it breaks the game. Even considering a game like 40K where the point limit can go as high as the two players agree to.

I'll throw my weight behind this, for what it's worth. Some things are reasonably powered but just too cheap in points, like the new scatterbikes (since we're all talking about eldar so much these days). At 35-40 pts/model, they'd be pretty reasonable. The wraithknight, on the other hand, with two ranged D weapons that can target different units, is just kind of broken at any points cost in my opinion, since regardless of the size and toughness of a model a WK has a pretty good shot at killing it in one round of shooting (~30% chance of getting at least one six on two hits), and regardless of points cost needs its rules toned way down.

What I mean is that if you have a unit that just turns the game into a "whoever goes first wins" there isn't really a fair points cost for that, raising its points cost won't be sufficient to rebalance it and make it fair, and the rules should be fixed because it's too powerful.

Maybe people should buy the extremely large GW terrain pieces to hide their important behind, and play the missions with the GW Maelstrom (tm) deck that mitigates any tactical advantage of being able to shoot things.

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, the fair cost might make it untenable in the game.

Yes, I understand your point. You can say, the unit which cannot die costs a 100,000 points; therefore you will never field it.

However, mine is this: Unit A, B, and C are all fair at 200 points. However, combine them, and their TOTAL value needs to be 100,000 points, because combined, now you have a statistically indestructible superunit.

There is no mechanism within 40k to compensate for force multipliers -- that is, increase the point values of abilities or units based on their ability to be more effective when used synergistically with another unit. This is why Invisibility is broken. No unit that can be invisible is broken by itself. The problem is that it can join up with some deathstar that you can drop in the middle of the table and indiscriminately point at and delete enemy units every turn. There are similar combinations of abilities, buffs, and relics for various factions which create situations where individually, it's all fair, but combined, you have a stupidly powerful unit that's just no fun to play against.

These are "overpowered" independent of point cost, in the context of Warhammer 40k, because other than taking away the combination (for instance by nerfing one of the components or changing the way they interact), you can't fix the problem.

This is a different from the overpowered/undercosted single unit, which I agree, can be adjusted for by points costs or FoC limits.

Similarly, if the best fix for a unit is a rules change, not a points change, would that not make it overpowered but not undercosted?

For example, I believe windrider jetbikes, and their scatter laser upgrade to be appropriately costed... the overpowered comes from being able to take the upgrade for the whole squad. If it went back to 1 upgrade per 3 models, then the problem would be mostly fixed and rebalanced, but no points change was needed.

Thus over-powered, not undercosted.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Really am tired of seeing arguments like..."oh it's under costed but it's not overpowered."

Like wha???

A units cost is directly related to it's power balance.

Is it possible for a unit to be overpowered without being under costed?Maybe... though those situation are pretty hard to even imagine - I've never seen an issue in 40k that couldn't be fixed by working out a units price. The end result of all balance issues come down to damage/defense/utility for x price. If somethings price does not meet with it's abilities it is ether overpowered/underpowered. There really isn't any other way of looking at it.

I think the problem with the overpowered/overcosted is in most cases not real. There were very few units realy overpowered in w40k in the last 3 editions I played. The eldar titan, the old necron ctan and the serpent. I can't think of any other overpowered ones. There is on the other hand a ton of overcosted and bad units. There are whole army books, which have unit after unit costing too much. This gives the false impression that anything good or normal is OP. As much as I dislike playing against eldar, lucky no necron players are here, their books are not overpowered. They are what all books should be. Multiple good toolbox units, most options viable, units with synergy in and outside of the codex they come from. All books should be like that. Why they are not, is a question GW should anwser.

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

That's not an example of something overpowered though, that's an example of something horribly unbalanced.

Something that costs a lot of points, sometimes does so awesomely that it is worth many times more than that many points but usually just dies and contributes nothing to the battle.... unbalanced, not overpowered.

Makumba wrote:
I think the problem with the overpowered/overcosted is in most cases not real. There were very few units realy overpowered in w40k in the last 3 editions I played. The eldar titan, the old necron ctan and the serpent. I can't think of any other overpowered ones. There is on the other hand a ton of overcosted and bad units. There are whole army books, which have unit after unit costing too much. This gives the false impression that anything good or normal is OP. As much as I dislike playing against eldar, lucky no necron players are here, their books are not overpowered. They are what all books should be. Multiple good toolbox units, most options viable, units with synergy in and outside of the codex they come from. All books should be like that. Why they are not, is a question GW should anwser.

That's kind of splitting hairs. If you say that there are a ton of overcosted (or bad) units, that everything else is undercosted. The cost of a unit is important only as a relative value to its alternatives. If a fairly costed wave serpent were 220 points and a wraith knight were 600 points, terminator squads, and wyches at their current point costs suddenly look fantastic.

I do totally agree with you that the Eldar codex is great by itself: there are many compelling units, reasonably coated, and pretty much nothing terrible. All codices should be written like this.

The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I don't think they are really that different at all. The primary exception to this is broken combinations, which have to be addressed differently.

 statu wrote:
The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I agree with this. One issue is that the power level of a unit can vary based on army composition, but the cost level is always fixed. For example, one flier, summoner, or high armor vehicle can be manageable on its own, but they become increasingly powerful when you spam them. The same could be said of certain synergistic applications of wargear, unit abilities, and psychic powers.

In fact, the Australian Community Comp has a system where certain units that cost an increasing amount of credits to field them for tournies. For example, the first unit costs 1, the 2nd 2, then 3 etc.

As a result I consider cost and power level to be related, but not synonymous terms.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think they are really that different at all. The primary exception to this is broken combinations, which have to be addressed differently.

I agree with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_hanged_man wrote:

 statu wrote:
The main thing here to remember is that while two words may have a similar definition, the ideas and notions that are contained within them are completely different, which is why we have undercosted and overpowered as two linked, yet different terms

I agree with this. One issue is that the power level of a unit can vary based on army composition, but the cost level is always fixed. For example, one flier, summoner, or high armor vehicle can be manageable on its own, but they become increasingly powerful when you spam them. The same could be said of certain synergistic applications of wargear, unit abilities, and psychic powers.

In fact, the Australian Community Comp has a system where certain units that cost an increasing amount of credits to field them for tournies. For example, the first unit costs 1, the 2nd 2, then 3 etc.

As a result I consider cost and power level to be related, but not synonymous terms.

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I think the issue you are talking about is more related to the fact that units are balanced between each other with expected compositions. If 4LC is considered a good counter to a medium tank 12 LC is equally and effective counter to 3 medium tanks. Things don't actually get stronger when you spam them - they are separate units that have nothing do with each other, other than the fact they are in the same army. It's just that when you spam units you overwhelm the expected counters in a TAC list. Most everyone agrees the days of TAC lists are over. With allies and FOC abuse there is usually 0 reason to not overload 1 end of the spectrum. This however has nothing to do with things being overpowered or not - it's really just about the fact TAC lists don't work anymore in the current rules.

The problem is that there is no way a fixed cost system can account for spam or force multipliers. That is where the distinction between unit cost and power level appears.

Starcraft does. Spamming anything makes you a sad panda when the hard counter shows up. But there are units in 40K that have no counter. At least, no cost effective counters. Maybe static lists are a gaming dead end. I'd love to be able to rush an Eldar base before they can get out the Wraithknights.

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

Sure, but the need for arbitrary constraints only serves to highlight the differences between cost and power level.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

Sure, but the need for arbitrary constraints only serves to highlight the differences between cost and power level.

Didn't matter to them before, they used to have 0-1 stuff before 5th edition.

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Imagine if the Rhino cost 250pts, but any Grey Knight or Tyranid on the board needed to take 2d6 toughness checks, or die.

Clearly overpowered. I mean, wtf. Insta-win against two armies?

Also, 250pts for an 11/11/10 with a stormbolter? Clearly overcosted.

Lowering the price doesn't fix it being OP. Raising the price doesn't make the Rhino appropriately coated for what it is.

I would say, in that scenario, it is both OP and overcosted.

Rare, but it does happen.

That's not an example of something overpowered though, that's an example of something horribly unbalanced.

Something that costs a lot of points, sometimes does so awesomely that it is worth many times more than that many points but usually just dies and contributes nothing to the battle.... unbalanced, not overpowered.

Exactly. I think we have to differentiate between unit balance and codex balance...

To get a little bit more spicific:

In a perfectly balanced game, everbody has the same chances to win. Means 50/50 in a two player game.

So what is a perfectly balanced unit in 40k? 50/50 against each other unit is not possible except every unit has the same stats and equipment (how boring) Does that mean there is no chance of balance for units with different stats? No! Think of rock-paper-scissors. Perfectly balanced game cause your AVERAGE chances of winning are still 50/50 because the AVERAGE chance of each choice (rock, paper scissor) is also 50/50. While a rock always fails against paper, it always wins against scissors.

For 40k this means, if a unit in average kills as many points per game/turn as it looses points per game/turn, then it is perfectly balanced. Doesnt mean that it cant have any advantages or disadvantages against certain units, as long as they cancel each other on average. If not then its undercosted or overcosted (overpowered or underpowered) in unit to unit balance.

Problem is, if all units are in perfect balance with each other, that doesnt mean, that the game itself is balanced, cause we have somehow the codex balance problem:. Think of playing rock-paper-scissors with the additional rule, that one player isnt allowed to pick anything else than rocks. Then he looses the ability to beat paper and the game isnt balanced anymore... So for this player paper would be totally overpowered.

Finally we get back to our 250 point-Tyranid-Grey-Knight-Killer Rhino, which itself might be in perfect unit-balance and hence not overpowered in general, cause against any other army you paid 250 points for a 11/11/10 stormbolter transport... yay... So even if the points are perfectly right, we have a unit that is Overpowered against some codices and totally underpowered against others.

So what does this mean? Basically the statement overpowered == undercostet is a matter of perspective (Codex balance or unit Balance). Personaly I would say Xenomancers is right with his statement overpowered == undercosted. Situationally overpowered units like the Killer rhino I would address with "bad codex balancing".

About psychic abilities: Even if they are totally random within their powerlevels, I think it would be possible to fix them:
The chance of casting an ability has to be related to their value in the game (which is not possible with the current system of casting powers, cause there are only three levels). But I mean, invincibility wouldnt be OP if the chance of casting it successfully would be just 5%. But if I had to fix that without changing the system or the spells, I would drop the random selection of powers and let the players pay an amount of points related to the power level and chances to cast the spell.

Greetings MoG

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

I've never seen Decurion described as fair and reasonable.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
There is a way to fix it - you fix the FOC.

GW is addressing this directly on a Codex-by-Codex basis:
- Necron Decurion
- Chaos Khorne Daemonkin
- Eldar CraftworldWarhost

These Codex-specific structures bypass the FOC entirely, working through formations to create a nice, fluffy list with fair and reasonable bonuses for taking fixed configurations of things. GW hit the ball out of the park on this one, and we can expect to see every Codex move in this direction, with the classic FOC being an afterthought starting in 8E.

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).
____

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
I've never seen Decurion described as fair and reasonable.

A year from now, when all of the other Codices get Decurion / Warhost-like things, you will.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course then you get situations where you can take 12 Wraithknights to back up a guardian host... Which is really sort of ODD by Fluff standards.

OTOH, that's a 4,000-pt force... I don't think we'll have to worry about that on the tabletop anytime soon, any more than one has to worry about a max IG FOC hitting the board (those 6 full-size, full-mech Infantry Platoons are a real backbreaker).

This is the key thing that most people miss when they talk about the Eldar being overpowered. They talk about battle focus on wraithknights and wraithguard, up to a dozen knights, forty scatter lasers on bikes, a full seer council -- and then buff it all with the best psychic abilities -- as if you could put it all on one table.

On your sub 2000 pt games, it's costed so that almost any of those great choices (there are so many good ones now) will chew up half your points or more, and you NEED the other half to add on bodies and fill in the gaps of whatever your cool shiny toy is missing. The Eldar having a book full of good choices doesn't mean you can have ALL of them at the same time.

I think a lot of it is just envy that most of us have half of a book full of terrible choices, some mediocre choices, and a couple of good choices.