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.

 Talys wrote:

 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.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

 Jayden63 wrote:
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.

Thats not really true. It can even be undercosted. Think of 3 units of 10 Orks vs your unkillable unit. If your unkillable unit is just able to kill 1 Ork per turn, do you think its worth 1000 points? Well I dont think so. Point costs control the ratio in numbers and as long as you can balance by adjusting numbers, you can balance by adjusting points. Your Unkillable unit kills 1000 Orks per turn? Fine, so let it cost as much as 1.000.000 Orks and its still underpowered. 993.000 remaining orks at the end of turn 7 will surely grab more objectives.


And for some logical reasons:

If it is possible to make an overpowered unit underpowered by making it so extremly expensive that it seems silly, there must exist a point somewhere in between where it is balanced.


Only unit you cant balance is the I-Win-Button

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 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.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

If we look at the recent books, I don't think Necrons or Khorne got the short end of things, so it's just a question of more Codex updates this year.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

In what game do elves ever get it bad?

They are always a top tier race, forever cast by popular fantasy -- the likes of Galadriel and Elrond; aloof, beautiful,mysterious, eternal of wisdom and ancient of power... and tragically doomed. And since Peter Jackson, evidently, they are also masters of ninjitsu. Of course, since the erstwhile hero must only deal with a tiny sliver of an elven life, and mostly the battle aspects of it, none of the negatives come into play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 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.

I wasn't even saying that at all, I was saying it was strange by a Fluff standpoint, way to insert words into my mouth guys.

Typically you'd imagine due to their power they'd be coming in with a full wraithguard army because of the dire situation needed to call one of those very rare wraithknights out due to the amount of Twins in eldar society being very low due to their birth rate, and then having one killed as they are in sync...Yeah.

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

If we look at the recent books, I don't think Necrons or Khorne got the short end of things, so it's just a question of more Codex updates this year.

I don't care about fluff. It's fluff.

 Talys wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Though in response to that, Eldar has always been the OP in typical editions where they get a book, that it's amazing that they haven't had a poor edition yet.

In what game do elves ever get it bad?

They are always a top tier race, forever cast by popular fantasy -- the likes of Galadriel and Elrond; aloof, beautiful,mysterious, eternal of wisdom and ancient of power... and tragically doomed. And since Peter Jackson, evidently, they are also masters of ninjitsu. Of course, since the erstwhile hero must only deal with a tiny sliver of an elven life, and mostly the battle aspects of it, none of the negatives come into play.

Of course Tolkien himself punched them down a bit, considering the elves of Mirkwood were nothing like that, and the Silmarillion casts some doubt on that "Eternal Wisdom" considering how much of the things were borked up by the elves sense of honor and issues.

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I suppose you could read it as that, but at the same time it's kinda hard for me to get immersed like that when they fail to provide CSM anything regarding consistency anymore.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Of course Tolkien himself punched them down a bit, considering the elves of Mirkwood were nothing like that, and the Silmarillion casts some doubt on that "Eternal Wisdom" considering how much of the things were borked up by the elves sense of honor and issues.

Pffft. Wood elf pansies!

And look at where that Eternal Wisdom thing got the Eldar

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I look forward to modelling my next army of a million space marines. I'd have to live longer than Asurmen for that to happen (well, ok, maybe I could do it at Dante's age... a thousand marines a year for a thousand years seems plausible), but can you imagine the carrying cases it would take to transport that? We could play 40k on the deck of aircraft carriers. Of course, we'd have to live as long as the Eldar, because each turn would take years. And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

Assume individual variance, If we are accounting for every individual in the conlifct, error moving can be assumed to be the models.

He's a little faster than his comrades, though out of a million models, no biggie.

Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

 Juicifer wrote:
Of course a units cost is intended to directly relate to it's power in game terms. Maybe years of edition/codex roulette have eroded people's willingness to acknowledge the basic intent of the points system?

Of course, that is the intention. I don't think that anyone disagrees with this. However, it doesn't change the fact that there are random abilities that are going to be better than others, and it doesn't change the fact that in 40k there are some combinations which are worthless while others are game breaking. Since there is not a surcharge for taking 2 correctly costed units in tandem, a rule change would be preferable to overcharging the two individual units on the *possibility* that they might be combined.

 Talys wrote:

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.

I think that WS and WK were and are priced right to play a 1500pts game. The problem is with other armies having both bad units and being priced for it as if there were not.
I got my hand on some epic rule books and there in the fluff sections I read about land raiders being super tanks and formations of those being able to take on titans. in w40k their points cost seems to point at the same thing, but not the efficiency. Almost everything in w40k is like that for most armies, and when suddenly an army pops up with a rules pack made the right way. Everyone cries OP and undercosted. I mean who in their right mind would buy a WK for 600pts when for a few more points one can have an eldar titan with better resilience twice the fire power at less then twice the cost etc.

Makumba wrote:

I think that WS and WK were and are priced right to play a 1500pts game. The problem is with other armies having both bad units and being priced for it as if there were not.
I got my hand on some epic rule books and there in the fluff sections I read about land raiders being super tanks and formations of those being able to take on titans. in w40k their points cost seems to point at the same thing, but not the efficiency. Almost everything in w40k is like that for most armies, and when suddenly an army pops up with a rules pack made the right way. Everyone cries OP and undercosted. I mean who in their right mind would buy a WK for 600pts when for a few more points one can have an eldar titan with better resilience twice the fire power at less then twice the cost etc.

I think the new WS is just fine. It's a very good DT, but it's also expensive. The old serpent's biggest problem was that it was a 60" firing range DT (effectively allowing you to spam it taking only troop slots) in a game where range is very important. The new Wraithknight has tools that no other faction has (ranged D), and awesome mobility. Plus, you can call it correctly costed, but then similar models like Imperial Knights, Dreadknights, and Riptides, as well as other Gargantuan MCs are overcosted, because given equivalent points, the WK will reliably win, and that shouldn't be.

Overall, I think the Eldar codex is actually excellent, because it's possible to build a balanced army where every unit feels like it has a purpose and is not a points tax. You'd be hard pressed to point at a unit and say, "these just suck" or "these are just way too expensive" in the way that people dislike terminators and land raiders.

So, the problem, really, is most of the other factions -- not Craftworld Eldar.

 Talys wrote:

If we look at the Fluff, for the really big engagements, they're far larger than even Epic scale, so a dozen WKs isn't a big deal if you break out your magnifying lens. And there's another spot on the battlefield which is all Flyers. And another one which is all Guardians. I always see 40k as the tip of the spear, at the critical juncture of a much larger battle.

I look forward to modelling my next army of a million space marines. I'd have to live longer than Asurmen for that to happen (well, ok, maybe I could do it at Dante's age... a thousand marines a year for a thousand years seems plausible), but can you imagine the carrying cases it would take to transport that? We could play 40k on the deck of aircraft carriers. Of course, we'd have to live as long as the Eldar, because each turn would take years.

And how would you tell if someone cheated and moved an extra inch?!

I have around 10k points of Eldar, and it probably would like a 40k scale Epic battle if I were to ever play it all at once. Transport is big, we're talking large storage containers for that much stuff per side.

At that scale, movement trays and/or croupier's sticks! In such games, it's more about the sheer spectacle of having a lot of stuff on the board, not ticky-tacky stuff.

Spetulhu wrote:
Sadly the points aren't always that well calculated, but that's one area where GW hasn't always been alone. I remember the BattleValue points they used in FASA's BattleTech game at some point. Sure, it worked if you used the same tech base but once you took Clan mechs vs Inner Sphere mechs the clanners would easily slag the same points of IS forces most of the time.

WTF? Clan forces were always supposed to be half the tonnage of IS forces, that was in the book where they came out with the clan stuff. Things only got complicated when you started using IS forces using Star League era tech, and then you had to look at it from a point of how much (and what types) of tech were being used. And got more complicated if you where using MechWarrior and campaign rules, but then you are talking about home games.

Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

 Runic wrote:
Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

In practice, they almost always are.

 Runic wrote:
Because a unit being overpowered and undercosted are not the same thing.

The entire purpose of this thread is to point out that they are in fact - the same thing. Overpowered being a more general term whilst undercosted is a (slightly) more specific term (which has a less severe connotation) meaning the exact same thing. Furthermore the point I'm trying to make and should be abundantly clear to everyone - almost every issue of balance in 40k is related to under/over costing. Therefore - at least in terms of 40k the two terms are basically synonymous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

It's fun to speculate on these things. I'm really hoping that theres a formation that gives all marines relentless for free and tacticals can take 4 heavy weapons and devestators take 10.

 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.

For the most part, I agree - undercosted and overpowered are basically the same 99% of the time.

However, I think there are some abilities which are overpowered because there's really no way to cost them that would make them fair. Invisibility certainly comes to mind.

Regardless, I agree. If a unit is undercosted then it is, by definition, overpowered - since its power level is above what it should be for its point cost.

(I haven't read the entire thread, btw, so sorry if I'm repeating/reiterating others).

There are certainly cases where a unit/power/ability/wargear is just so broken it should not exist at all. Elements like that are not fun and shouldn't attempt to be balanced short of a total re-work of the concept.

However, for nearly everything else, point costs represent the power of a unit/power/ability/wargear. There's no fundamental difference between saying 'The point cost doesn't represent the strength of X' and 'The strength of X isn't represented well by the point cost'. If you're arguing that, what you're really doing is debating how something should be fixed, which can be done by either pointing it correctly or altering the ability to match the current price tag, or a combination of both.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

For the most part, I agree - undercosted and overpowered are basically the same 99% of the time.

However, I think there are some abilities which are overpowered because there's really no way to cost them that would make them fair. Invisibility certainly comes to mind.

Regardless, I agree. If a unit is undercosted then it is, by definition, overpowered - since its power level is above what it should be for its point cost.

(I haven't read the entire thread, btw, so sorry if I'm repeating/reiterating others).

The other 1% of the time I'd say the most correct/appropriate terminology is typically "unbalanced" rather than undercosted/overpowered/whatever.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:


The other 1% of the time I'd say the most correct/appropriate terminology is typically "unbalanced" rather than undercosted/overpowered/whatever.

A fair point, and we also have great little qualifier words to describe the degree of overpowered or underpowered something is.

If you're a fan of Orwell, you could say that Scatter Bikes are Double Plus Overpowered.

Yeah, Undercosted != overpowered.

If there was a unit that says, "when you deploy this unit, you win the game" , it would always be overpowered . It wouldn't be under it's appropriate cost, because there is none, it's purely overpowered.

This is taking it to extremes, but you get the idea.
90% of the time, they are identical, something is overpowered for it's cost, because it is too cheap for what it does.

Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost.


Again though, regardless of the above, the two statements are different for a reason.

Although they describe the same situation (too much bang for too little buck)
The individual phrases provide context, If someone says "it's undercosted", they mean, keep the rules the same, charge more.
If they say "it's overpowered" they mean, keep the price the same, weaken the unit/rule.

The different phrases tell you about the users opinion on the situation that both phrases describe.

I agree. These 2 concepts are different, but are often related.

A unit can be overpowered because its undercosted. Examples: Riptide Ion Accelerator. Too cheap for what it does. If it was appropriately costed, it wouldn't be overpowered.

An overpowered unit that is costed about right: Imperial Knights. They are actually pretty easy to kill with multiple melta units that are a fraction of its cost. But it combines a lot of power in a focused package, at a single point on the battlefield it can apply almost irresistible force. The fact that it has many hard counters keeps its cost down.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Per my earlier example, 3-point Guardsmen might be undercosted, but they are certainly not overpowered. Same with 1-point Grots.

On the flip side, S7 AP2 Gets Hot! Plasma Pistols are not overpowered, but they are clearly overcosted at 15 points, but somewhat undercosted at 5 pts.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Only combi weapons are truly useful. The power weapons are meh.

"Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost."

My contention is that actually doesn't exist in 40K.

Martel732 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I'm just waiting for the space marine decurion/strike force.

Bs5/ws5 veterans? Old veteran traits? Choosing between the tac, scout and bike detachment as the baseline? Buffs to centurion cohort formations?

Oh yes, bring on the cheese.

BA have one where they can give free combi-weapons to Sternguard and free specials to Vanguard, I kinda hope to see that because I wanna see more people play Vanguard Veterans over Honour guard at times.

Only combi weapons are truly useful. The power weapons are meh.

"Somethings aren't just too cheap, they are over powered, regardless of what they cost."

My contention is that actually doesn't exist in 40K.

I think it might be like certain abstract mathematical concepts, like how there is no such thing as a straight demand curve IRL, we just use the concept to get a point across.

So while there might be no unit that is truly overpowered at any price, the concept still exists such that we have to treat being OP and Undercosted as separate, but related, concepts.

Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units). Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Sadly, I don't really see Codex: Space Marines getting the full-on Eldar and Necron treatment (great detachments/formations, buffs on less than desirable units, buffs on great units). Two of the biggest disappointments for all marine players has been dreadnaughts and terminators. In order to give them the much needed overhaul that they need, no less than 4 previously released 7th edition armies(BA, SW, GK, and Daemonkin) would need those entries updated, and we all know how GW feels about FAQs...

CSM doesn't care what the rest gets, give us the new decent terminators.