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.

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.

My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.

based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.

 Formosa wrote:

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.

My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.

based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.

I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.

swarmofseals wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.

My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.

based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.

I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.

Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.

I guess all of those players that do well with GUO's are just really really awesome players.

Kind of like the eldar player in 3rd edition that spammed star cannons that told me eldar were for advanced players only.

Also of any of the tournament players I know, exactly all of them take GUOs for the very reason that they are cost much less than they actually should be.

Yes GUO are taken by those playing Nurgle because there are literally zero other Nurgle daemon heroes with any command abilites. Not to mention the GUO is the requirement for the Tallyband Battalion formation which is the only battalion formation available.

Yes, some behemoths are to cheap, but they are the exception not the rule. Since the changes with the rule of one in magic, many characters/behemoths are not worth their points. There needs to be lots of rebalancing in the next edition. As i have said in previous posts; any system where a Herald of Nurgle costs the same as a Lord Castellant, Lord Celestant, and Knight Azyros you know character balance is skewed.

I know many of you debating me on this are those who still play home brew systems or are players prior to GHB that used comp systems that discouraged large models and favored the WHFB massive troop blocks.

I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.

It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.

I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.

The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.

If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

swarmofseals wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.

My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.

based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.

I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.

Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.

Just to show the math of comparison between 24 plaguebearers and a Greate Unclean One.
Both sets of numbers are when facing a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS)

Great Unclean One (240pts): Deals an average of 5.2 damage every turn (this includes shooting) (not including any spells)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill (note can't get save bonus from terrain)

10x Liberators (200pts): Deals an average of 5.3 damage every turn (this is more against 5+ monsters)( 2-damage hammers on primes)
10x Liberators (200pts): Requires a total of 173 melee attacks to kill
-Cost 20% less, are 2%+ better in offense and 31% better at defense.

5x Retributors (220pts): Deals an average of 9.5 damage every turn (not using starsouls)
5x Retributors (220pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill
-Costs 10% less, are 83% better in offense and the same at defense

Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Deals an average of 5.7 damage (with +1 to hit) (AoE buff)
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Requires a total of 286 hits to kill both (with +1 save as a unit, 6+ saves heal)(cant be dispelled)
-Costs 20% less are 10% better in offense and 240% better in defense

20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Deals an average of 3.7 damage every turn (done in 2 units of 10)
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Requires a total of 200 attacks to kill all models. (Does not include -1 to hit)
-Costs 20% less are 40% less offensive and 66% better in defense.

Now after showing all these units that cost 10-20% than the GUO I don't see how it could be undercosted. The only benefit I did not show is his single spell he can cast. I took average for everything and built a typical fight for AoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.

It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.

I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.

The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.

If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.

I am not sure what methodology your chart used to reach those values. It doesn't give any details or a way to know which points values are being assessed or what they mean. Is this using the GHB, PPC or Ayzr points values? Does an A mean a unit is overpowered or exactly where it should be in terms of power? Regardless, it does show that Nurgle units in their current state are pretty terrible except for a few options. In contrast, it shows my Stormcast army has many solid options.

You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.

Also the guy that wrote the thing that the GHB is based on out and out said that he made monsters a little cheaper than they should be to encourage their use on the warhammer org forums last year before it was a GHB system.

The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.

Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.

The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.

You are right, the nurgle force as a whole is pretty meh while stormcast are indeed pretty solid overall.

I want to say that for me personally - while I'm not a fan of "armies" being composed of nothing but monsters or primarily low model count things - that my main concern with any game like this is that you at least pay what you are supposed to.

Now AOS is a lot more balanced than 40k, which is a true ungodly mess when it comes to balance. However, you can see the bell curve exists as it does and that there is a lot of room for improvement. I don't feel GW will do that improvement though because I think to them its "good enough" and indeed if my community adhered to the ivory tower principles of GW HQ I'd be fine too... but it only takes a couple guys figuring out whjat is undercosted and then spamming those to wreck the entire community (unless you're ok with that, which a lot of people seem to be so YMMV)

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.

What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick? Please show me your math. Who is everyone that agrees with you about that I am wrong? Almost everyone I talk to says the exact opposite of what you are saying. Obviously, regardless of your views there is a debate on the topic. I honestly have never heard anyone with your point of view until I recently decided to post back on these forums. I am not saying that I am absolutely correct, but you are just simply saying that I am wrong and you are correct. However you are not using any facts or ways to support your argument. You are using the Onus probandi and anecdotal logic fallacies to not making any debate. If I am wrong please show me how I am incorrect and back it up with math, tournament results, or something.

Please note I am not saying that there are not heroes/behemoths that need a points increase. I will agree that some units such as Celestial Prime and Bastiladon are likely in need of a points increase. However, I don't think this is an overall trend with AOS. Particularly the belief the GUO should be increased in cost simply because you have seen people play the model and win some games. Particularly since Nurgle players have no other options for their general. I provided you the numbers that backs up the beliefs of some players that feel the GUO is not currently worth the assigned points in the GHB. In other points systems I have seen him costed at 200-220 points (SCGT which is one of the best systems I have every used). I likely think he should be 220-230.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@auticus thanks for the explanation. I would have loved to look behind the curtain to see how he developed the formulas. I agree I don't like to see armies of only a few big models. I also don't like to see a swarm of troops since it takes forever to play against. I prefer the balanced force with solid blocks of troops with a few big monsters/centerpieces backing them up. The trick is however making sure they are appropriately costed so they are a valid option and you are not paying a 'monster tax' just to play something cool.

The best thing in the AoS monster design is that as monsters take damage they also are reduced in capability. I think this is a good balancing mechanic. Also, behemoths no longer getting cover saves in terrain and the reduced role of magic has balanced them out a great deal.

broxus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You ignored so many variables in your calculation I don't even know where to start. If you want to cherry pick stats you can always find the data you need, but when everything is accounted for behemoths regularly come up as undercosted. This would mean we'd expect to see them be dominant in tournaments which is exactly what we see. Everyone's math except yours disagrees with you, the evidence disagrees with you. There is no debate, only you repeatedly denying a well established trend. It's yet another case of a person refusing to admit they might possibly have been wrong and I think I'll leave you to it at this point.

What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick? Please show me your math. Who is everyone that agrees with you about and that I am wrong? Almost everyone I talk to says the exact opposite of what you are saying. Obviously, regardless of your views there is a debate on the topic. I honestly have never heard anyone with your point of view until I recently decided to post back on these forums. I am not saying that I am absolutely correct, but you are just simply saying that I am wrong and you are correct. However you are not using any facts or ways to support your argument. You are using the Onus probandi and anecdotal logic fallacies to not really make your case. If I am wrong please show me how I am incorrect and back it up with math, tournament results, or something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@auticus thanks for the explanation. I would have loved to look behind the curtain to see how he developed the formulas. I agree I don't like to see armies of only a few big models. I also don't like to see a swarm of troops since it takes forever to play against. I prefer the balanced force with solid blocks of troops with a few big monsters/centerpieces backing them up. The trick is however making sure they are appropriately costed so they are a valid option and you are not paying a 'monster tax' just to play something cool.

The best thing in the AoS monster design is that as monsters take damage they also are reduced in capability. I think this is a good balancing mechanic. Also, behemoths no longer getting cover saves in terrain and the reduced role of magic has balanced them out a great deal.

So you asked for evidence of monsters being OP and ignored an entire database of evidence in the same post. This is why I'm not going to bother.

[edit] I will, however, apologize for being impolite. I have been very worn down lately and this is reflected in my recent posts despite you being very civil, and I am sorry for that.

@Ninthmuskeeter so is your argument that if any unit in that database is a combined score of 'A' then it is overpowered? Or is it if any unit has any field as an 'A'? I am seeing all kinds of units (even basic troops) that meet that requirement. I guess I just need you to explain what in the database shows things are undercosted. Is the goal to have every unit have a score of 'C' and that is considered the gold standard of points balance?

This is not me trying to be condescending. I just want to know for my own personal understanding of that database and to help me asses others views on balance better.. I have spent some time reviewing the database and am still not sure what it means. I saw some things that just didn't make sense to me and wasn't sure what the average bar is set at.

 auticus wrote:
Also the guy that wrote the thing that the GHB is based on out and out said that he made monsters a little cheaper than they should be to encourage their use on the warhammer org forums last year before it was a GHB system.

The methodology calculates the average damage output per turn against every possible save then averaged out. It then calculates the average defensive utilility (saves, regen, ward save equivalents, etc) and averages them out. It then divides that by the GHB cost to get an efficiency score.

Ex: a great damage output that you pay little for is a must take because its over powered since it does't cost what it should in favor of the taker.. A great damage output that you pay normal price for is lower. A great damage output that you pay too much for is bad.

The lettering is a ranking of the scores. So lay out every unit in the game in a line based on their scores in any given category, and the percentile bands correspond to their grade. Heroes were graded by comparing only other heroes due to the command abilities and what not not being able to be mathematically modeled.

You are right, the nurgle force as a whole is pretty meh while stormcast are indeed pretty solid overall.

I want to say that for me personally - while I'm not a fan of "armies" being composed of nothing but monsters or primarily low model count things - that my main concern with any game like this is that you at least pay what you are supposed to.

Now AOS is a lot more balanced than 40k, which is a true ungodly mess when it comes to balance. However, you can see the bell curve exists as it does and that there is a lot of room for improvement. I don't feel GW will do that improvement though because I think to them its "good enough" and indeed if my community adhered to the ivory tower principles of GW HQ I'd be fine too... but it only takes a couple guys figuring out whjat is undercosted and then spamming those to wreck the entire community (unless you're ok with that, which a lot of people seem to be so YMMV)

Exactly this. I think part of the reason why GW's balance is so over the place is because to them, as you said, it's "good enough" on the assumption that people are playing in the similar way to them. But, as you also stated, all it takes is one guy min-maxing to the extreme and then it sets off a chain reaction where everybody else will try and do the same to avoid getting steamrolled and then that becomes the norm rather than the exception and everything tends to collapse after that. This sadly tends to happen in any game that uses points because people will always try min-max everything and apply math and statistics to "prove" why X is always a better choice than Y rather than taking X because they like X.

I am going to agree with Broxus that on the whole behemoths aren't under costed and in many cases are over costed.

Since the GHB which tournament has been won by a monster heavy list? None in the UK - it's Stormcast Warrior Brotherhood/Skybourne Slayers and Bonesplitterz Kunnin Ruk that have taken all the top spots. All three lists contain exactly zero behemoths.

And those top tournament players, if you listen to their podcasts you'll hear them comment that behemoths are generally over costed for what they bring. Take Russ Veal, one of the best players in the world - almost won Warlords with Bloodbound + Friends, won Clash with Warrior Brotherhood - takes pure BCR to Blood and Glory and has his worst finish ever.

It is probably going to swing the other way soon. People are now really starting to explore Sylvaneth and it looks like the meta is going to swing with them on top soon - but although the list will be behemoth heavy it's other things like the battalion abilities the wyldwoods and the Kurnoth Hunters that will all contribute it being on top.

So, whilst behemoth heavy lists can be tough - they are not top of pile currently, and there are lots of behemoths widely agreed to be over costed like Goddrak and Nagash.

(PS - Merry Christmas everyone! Ho - ho - ho!)

broxus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

swarmofseals wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

broxus wrote:
@NinthMusketeer. I own five armies to include the ones that I have argued are to cheap (stormcast). I don't think i have ever said anything was underpowered/overpowered (unless it has no cost associated with it). What I have argued is that in matched play the points values need to be adjusted in the next GHB to make everything viable. There shouldn't be any no brainer units/skills or never taken units/skills due to points values.

My views are based on three things. First, math which helps dispel 99% of unit power myths. Second, playing in multiple large tournaments and countless local games. Finally, I talk to other players at the top tables about things they have seen as needing adjustment in the game.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant by the GUO being undercosted at 240pts. However, due to the three reasons I posted above I would (as would other tournament players) disagree with that.

based on my own experience I would agree with you, the GUO is exceptionally good for 240pts and a no brainer id say, and if something is pretty much an automatic pick, either it needs adjusting, or the units around it need adjusting.

I might be wrong about this but in the previous thread that this discussion is referring to, broxus was arguing that behemoths in AoS are generally *overcosted* and that the GUO is actually not worth even 240 points.

Yeah, which is why its ironic that he brings up math and tournaments, since both of those show behemoths being dominant.

Just to show the math of comparison between 24 plaguebearers and a Greate Unclean One.
Both sets of numbers are when facing a unit that hits on 4+, wounds on a 4+ and has a 4+ save (a likely opponent in AoS)

Great Unclean One (240pts): Deals an average of 5.2 damage every turn (this includes shooting) (not including any spells)
Great Unclean One (240pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill (note can't get save bonus from terrain)

10x Liberators (200pts): Deals an average of 5.3 damage every turn (this is more against 5+ monsters)( 2-damage hammers on primes)
10x Liberators (200pts): Requires a total of 173 melee attacks to kill
-Cost 20% less, are 2%+ better in offense and 31% better at defense.

5x Retributors (220pts): Deals an average of 9.5 damage every turn (not using starsouls)
5x Retributors (220pts): Requires a total of 120 melee attacks to kill
-Costs 10% less, are 83% better in offense and the same at defense

Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Deals an average of 5.7 damage (with +1 to hit) (AoE buff)
Lord Celestant and Lord Castellant (200pts): Requires a total of 286 hits to kill both (with +1 save as a unit, 6+ saves heal)(cant be dispelled)
-Costs 20% less are 10% better in offense and 240% better in defense

20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Deals an average of 3.7 damage every turn (done in 2 units of 10)
20x Plaguebearers (200pts): Requires a total of 200 attacks to kill all models. (Does not include -1 to hit)
-Costs 20% less are 40% less offensive and 66% better in defense.

Now after showing all these units that cost 10-20% than the GUO I don't see how it could be undercosted. The only benefit I did not show is his single spell he can cast. I took average for everything and built a typical fight for AoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 auticus wrote:
I'm coming at it from a purely math modeling point of view. When compared to the game as a whole, they are about 20% too cheap for what they do.

It has nothing to do with discouraging large models and favoring massive troop blocks.

I wouldn't care about large models if they cost what they are supposed to.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/AOSStats.aspx shows you exactly the overall math-based scores offensively and defensively of every model in the game, and where they stand.

The Great Unclean One when you pull him up is not grotesquely out of balance (the grid shows you how far from average something is in one of four directions, with the center being the average) but he is undercosted based on the pure math and statistical probabilities.

If you have a different model that you can present that shows how that is wrong, I'd be happy to see it. I put a lot of value in the numbers that I have here because the model was generated by a math genius that has a doctorate in advanced statistics and mathematics. While I myself am not at that level in terms of my degree, if someone else could show me a different model I'd be more than happy to review but until then, it has nothing to do with not wanting people to take a lot of monsters. That is apples to oranges.

I am not sure what methodology your chart used to reach those values. It doesn't give any details or a way to know which points values are being assessed or what they mean. Is this using the GHB, PPC or Ayzr points values? Does an A mean a unit is overpowered or exactly where it should be in terms of power? Regardless, it does show that Nurgle units in their current state are pretty terrible except for a few options. In contrast, it shows my Stormcast army has many solid options.

Just because I'm curious, how does this system calculate for the value of Blubber and Bile (roll when suffering a wound; on a 5, ignore the wound; on a 6, the attacking unit suffers a mortal wound) and Corpulent Mass (heal for D3 every hero phase)?

Ignoring the is it undercosted or not argument, I'll leave you to argue about that, but...

What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick?

Where to start! I can't hope to cover everything, but some hints as to why I always find such statements amusing.

You have largely only looked at what happens vs a single stat line, not even that, only half a stat line.


Movement. A fairly important stat, especially for objective based games, where getting to them first or getting another unit to one you just lost can be the difference between win and lose.

Liberators and GUO are even but Plaguebearers are slower.

Bravery and battleshock. A hugely important stat at times. As a single model unit the GUO never worries about battleshock. The Liberators should be crapping themselves and the plague bearers are possibly looking forward to it.

E.g GUO has his turn, he casts his spell, shoots, then attacks. Averages 3 or 4 dead Liberators. Liberators attack back, they take another wound from the Bubble and Bile, so assume they have on average lost 4 models at that point. That results in maybe another 4 models gone during battleshock. Average wounds inflicted is something like 11 or 12.

Plaguebearers are possibly highly amusing. With Bravery 10 the Liberators have to kill 5 models to have any chance of causing extra casualties. Between armor and Disgusting resilience, plus possibly fecundity and having way over 10 models for extra bravery that pushed the needed wounds upwards. Based on the average 5.3 wounds you are showing it is unlikely that will happen. However, whether they lose 5 models or not they still get to roll for battleshock if they lost a model. In effect against tbe liberators the plague bearers will often be rolling just to see if they gain extra models, on average they will be gaining half a plague bearer per player turn. The fun with battleshock does end their for plaguebearers, they make the enemy reroll 1's for their battleshock, poor Liberators (but GUO ignores that).

Monster degradation vs model loss.
You have only shown the what full strength units achieve, what about how they look after a round of combat - GUO is weaker on the attack, but the units are down models and attack, and possibly other bonuses (e.g battleshock per 10 models, or hit bonuses etc).

Rend.
You will as you say come up against the 4+ save unit. But that is not even remotely all you will come up against. You will also come up against the 5+ and 6+ or no saves, and special saves, not to mention mystic shield, cover and rerollable saves. Most of which significantly alters how useful rending will or will not be. You will also face rending of various degrees. You simply haven't accounted for any of that. Looking at one simple stat line and then saying maths proves something is under/over costed is simply naive.


Magic.
OK you say you didn't include the magic. Why? The GUO spell is potentially very nice, D3 mortal wounds to potentially multiple enemy units and/or healing friendly units. There are some models I try to take just for the magic they bring, so dismissing magic as not part of your maths is again way too naïve.

Healing.
The GUO heals D3 wounds each of his hero phases, what is not to like about that. Models that heal like that can't be ground down whilst you focus on other stuff, you go for them with enough to deal with it quickly or have to accept that it isn't going to die. Those 10 liberators (or any other unit) who have largely melted away to the GUO first attack and battleshock will not have the numbers to overcome his healing. Things might be different if the Liberators go first, but the point is you haven't accounted for any of that.

Mortal wounds.
You will probably also face mortal wounds, and dealing out mortal wounds is highly useful. The GUO and plague bearers have mitigation to varying degrees against that, the liberators do not. The GUO can deal out mortal wounds where as the others do not.

Missiles.
In a game where missile fire is often regarded as OP the Plague bearers are awesome, -2 to hit in large units.

Synergy.
Looking at any unit in isolation is simply ignoring a lot of how people choose armies. Synergies between units can make a huge difference, and taking a unit that meets some battalions requirements makes them more valuable than they otherwise look due to battalion bonuses the whole battalion then gains.

puree wrote:
Ignoring the is it undercosted or not argument, I'll leave you to argue about that, but...

What variables did I miss? What did I cherry pick?

Where to start! I can't hope to cover everything, but some hints as to why I always find such statements amusing.

You have largely only looked at what happens vs a single stat line, not even that, only half a stat line.


Movement. A fairly important stat, especially for objective based games, where getting to them first or getting another unit to one you just lost can be the difference between win and lose.

Liberators and GUO are even but Plaguebearers are slower.

Bravery and battleshock. A hugely important stat at times. As a single model unit the GUO never worries about battleshock. The Liberators should be crapping themselves and the plague bearers are possibly looking forward to it.

E.g GUO has his turn, he casts his spell, shoots, then attacks. Averages 3 or 4 dead Liberators. Liberators attack back, they take another wound from the Bubble and Bile, so assume they have on average lost 4 models at that point. That results in maybe another 4 models gone during battleshock. Average wounds inflicted is something like 11 or 12.

Plaguebearers are possibly highly amusing. With Bravery 10 the Liberators have to kill 5 models to have any chance of causing extra casualties. Between armor and Disgusting resilience, plus possibly fecundity and having way over 10 models for extra bravery that pushed the needed wounds upwards. Based on the average 5.3 wounds you are showing it is unlikely that will happen. However, whether they lose 5 models or not they still get to roll for battleshock if they lost a model. In effect against tbe liberators the plague bearers will often be rolling just to see if they gain extra models, on average they will be gaining half a plague bearer per player turn. The fun with battleshock does end their for plaguebearers, they make the enemy reroll 1's for their battleshock, poor Liberators (but GUO ignores that).

Monster degradation vs model loss.
You have only shown the what full strength units achieve, what about how they look after a round of combat - GUO is weaker on the attack, but the units are down models and attack, and possibly other bonuses (e.g battleshock per 10 models, or hit bonuses etc).

Rend.
You will as you say come up against the 4+ save unit. But that is not even remotely all you will come up against. You will also come up against the 5+ and 6+ or no saves, and special saves, not to mention mystic shield, cover and rerollable saves. Most of which significantly alters how useful rending will or will not be. You will also face rending of various degrees. You simply haven't accounted for any of that. Looking at one simple stat line and then saying maths proves something is under/over costed is simply naive.


Magic.
OK you say you didn't include the magic. Why? The GUO spell is potentially very nice, D3 mortal wounds to potentially multiple enemy units and/or healing friendly units. There are some models I try to take just for the magic they bring, so dismissing magic as not part of your maths is again way too naïve.

Healing.
The GUO heals D3 wounds each of his hero phases, what is not to like about that. Models that heal like that can't be ground down whilst you focus on other stuff, you go for them with enough to deal with it quickly or have to accept that it isn't going to die. Those 10 liberators (or any other unit) who have largely melted away to the GUO first attack and battleshock will not have the numbers to overcome his healing. Things might be different if the Liberators go first, but the point is you haven't accounted for any of that.

Mortal wounds.
You will probably also face mortal wounds, and dealing out mortal wounds is highly useful. The GUO and plague bearers have mitigation to varying degrees against that, the liberators do not. The GUO can deal out mortal wounds where as the others do not.

Missiles.
In a game where missile fire is often regarded as OP the Plague bearers are awesome, -2 to hit in large units.

Synergy.
Looking at any unit in isolation is simply ignoring a lot of how people choose armies. Synergies between units can make a huge difference, and taking a unit that meets some battalions requirements makes them more valuable than they otherwise look due to battalion bonuses the whole battalion then gains.

I would love to respond to your feedback

1) No I didn't focus on a single stat line but instead a total of 7+ stats to give you the numbers below.

2) All the units I provided are either a 4" or 5" movement so they are relatively similar

3) Bravery and battleshock, are really not an issue for either army. Daemons have a leadership 10, Stormcast are multi-wound models so forcing tests is much harder, and are immune with many skills or reroll with GA Order skill.

4)Yes I only show attacks at full strength. However, I only show the GUO at full strength also. Showing a degradation model will likely show very little since they both lose attack power as they are damaged.

5) In terms of rending I would argue that a 4 or 5+ save is the most common in the game. However, the numbers I have provided will mostly stay proportional to each other. The new rule of one that makes save roles of '1' always fail has really helped balance out rending advantages.

6) Yes I said I didn't include magic for obvious reasons. It is only likely to go off half the time, can be dispelled, and depends on how many units are under it.

6) Healing I didn't include healing because frequently it doesn't matter once you are in combat. If any player is smart they will focus their fire on the GUO or any healing target until they are dead. Not to mention if your opponent gets a double turn. Yes this is a nice ability, but it is a situational advantage.

7) Yes, in terms of mortal wounds the daemons win out since they have a save. Remember however, many Order units have double damage against daemons so it is a double edged sword. Also, the majority of wounds in the game are not mortal wounds but instead normal wounds.

8) The missiles +1 to hit for plaguebearers is a very nice skill that makes them even better.

9) Synergy the Stormcast have tons of this. The Daemon units not so much!

I am curious with all the things you brought up how would you point them and assess their value? Would this show them being to expensive/cheap? As you showed all units have small advantages and excel at certain rules and I think for the most part these balance out. So the point of my math was to show that the GUO was appropriately costed if not slightly overcosted. Did any of the things you provide show this to be different?

 Bottle wrote:
I am going to agree with Broxus that on the whole behemoths aren't under costed and in many cases are over costed.

Since the GHB which tournament has been won by a monster heavy list? None in the UK - it's Stormcast Warrior Brotherhood/Skybourne Slayers and Bonesplitterz Kunnin Ruk that have taken all the top spots. All three lists contain exactly zero behemoths.

And those top tournament players, if you listen to their podcasts you'll hear them comment that behemoths are generally over costed for what they bring. Take Russ Veal, one of the best players in the world - almost won Warlords with Bloodbound + Friends, won Clash with Warrior Brotherhood - takes pure BCR to Blood and Glory and has his worst finish ever.

It is probably going to swing the other way soon. People are now really starting to explore Sylvaneth and it looks like the meta is going to swing with them on top soon - but although the list will be behemoth heavy it's other things like the battalion abilities the wyldwoods and the Kurnoth Hunters that will all contribute it being on top.

So, whilst behemoth heavy lists can be tough - they are not top of pile currently, and there are lots of behemoths widely agreed to be over costed like Goddrak and Nagash.

(PS - Merry Christmas everyone! Ho - ho - ho!)

That's relative too though.

Take a line, number it -10 to positive 10. The value 0 represents balance, or an item that is costed 100% correctly. Positive values indicate that the model performs better than its cost by that severity. Negative values indicate that the model performs worse than its cost by that severity.

The GUO, for example, falls at roughly 2 or 2.5 on that line. It is under costed by roughly 20-25% but when you're looking at that line, that's not THAT much farther over the 0. It is, however, still undercost.

Next look at the tournament mindset. They are looking for the items that rest on the 5 or higher on that line. Those are items that are vastly undercosted for what they can do. From that perspective, monsters that are 2 - 2.5s would be overcosted to them, because compared to the really undercosted units out there, there is still no comparison. I'm speaking from someone that lived and breathed tournament play for the better part of a decade, not someone that just watches arguments and makes decisions without experience.

So when someone says "yeah but tournament players say monsters are overcosted", to me what I know a lot of them mean having been one of them is that their value of "0" (balanced) is skewed far to the right because in the tournament world you aren't looking for balanced forces, you are looking for heavily skewed forces. A GUO that is *only* undercosted by 20% is not often viable in the tournament scene because its not "undercosted enough".

Then the question to ask is "what level of over/undercosted is acceptable". That tolerance value from individual to individual is where most of the disagreements come from as to what defines under or overcosted points. For me, the tolerance value is 0. In a perfect world, to me, everything should be as close to that 0 value as possible on the line. Thats what defines your bell curve. In 40k, that line is so abused and warped its not even funny. In AOS there is a great deal of items that fall between the -2 and +2. The vast majority (which is why I say AOS is much more balanced). For other people, they may be ok with +/- 3, so if I say "the GUO is undercosted (because to me it sitting at 2-2.5 is undercosted) the person with a +/- 3 tolerance would argue "no no its not its fine".

I'm also not disagreeing with the brotherhood stuff and cunnin rukk stuff being OP. Those rules push those forces well past 6 or 7 on the line, but thats where most tournament forces from people playing to win the tournament would place most if not all of their forces. If I was designing the game, those items would have been brought back down closer to 0 in a hurry.

That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?

 auticus wrote:

That's relative too though.

Just wanted to chime in and say how good your post is. I think you pretty much hit the psychology and reality of balance on the nose.

The most broken stuff in the game are almost exclusively battalions (with a couple of exceptions), and nearly all of the most OP builds are based around battalions. These battalions tend to do one of two things:

1. Fundamentally alter the way the game plays (like skybourne slayers and gautfyre scorch)

2. Boosts an already somewhat OP unit multiplicatively (like kunnin' rukk)

I just don't think GW has figured out how to make battalions with these sorts of rules playable while also being balanced. It's really difficult.

 Bottle wrote:
That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?

I think this is the most critical thing. As an example the numbers Auticus used stayed the GUO was 20%-25% overpriced. 20%-25% compared to what? What is the base unit where everything your numbers are based off of? You must have a starting point to compare everything to. For me here is where I would have started in AoS:

Basic unit of measurement:
Troops: Stormcast Liberators (100-pts)
Elite troops: Bloodbound Skullreapers (150-pts)
Ranged troops: Stormcast Judicators (180-pts)
Cavalry: Bloodbound Skullcrushers (150-pets)
General: Mighty Lord of Khorne (130-pts)
Standards: Bloodbound Bloodsecrator (130-pts)
Behemoths: Khorne Bloodthrister of Insensate Rage (350-pts)
Artillery: Order Cannons (210-pts)

Once these points have been finalized you then base all units off them In terms of offense, defense, movement, leadership and abilites. I think this is the best way to help balance out things.

I also agree that Battalions are the thing that becomes the hardest to balance. Most broken lists do come from battalions. However, these will help keep the game interesting and allow you to use units in combination with each other you normally wouldn't. So honestly I am torn with them. I don't think all should be allowed but maybe they should give each faction 2-3 on a rotational basis to keep things fresh.

swarmofseals wrote:

 auticus wrote:

That's relative too though.

Just wanted to chime in and say how good your post is. I think you pretty much hit the psychology and reality of balance on the nose.

The most broken stuff in the game are almost exclusively battalions (with a couple of exceptions), and nearly all of the most OP builds are based around battalions. These battalions tend to do one of two things:

1. Fundamentally alter the way the game plays (like skybourne slayers and gautfyre scorch)

2. Boosts an already somewhat OP unit multiplicatively (like kunnin' rukk)

I just don't think GW has figured out how to make battalions with these sorts of rules playable while also being balanced. It's really difficult.

I'm somewhat reminded of Warmachine/Hordes Theme Forces - you trade losing access to several different units, and in return get a series of boosts. Of course, some of those Theme Forces were broken as hell, but that aside...

The Battalions GW put out feel a bit like that, except you lose very little (if anything) in exchange for what you get.

 Bottle wrote:
That's all fine in theory and I appreciate your point, but can you point me in the direction of a balance 0 army or balance 0 units? I think the practical application of everything which you've written above relies on placing that 0 somewhere arbitrary - if not, where would that be?

Its not arbitrary at all. Point 0 is simply saying that if a unit has X offense and Y defense that it costs "0" (a point value)
And that if a unit costs X + 1 offense and Y defense that it should also cost "0" (a point value adjusted)
And that if a unit costs X for offense and Y + 1 defense that it should also cost "0" (a point value adjusted)
And that if a unit costs X - 1 for offense then its cost is "0" (a point value adjusted)

Those aren't aribtrary. You can take any unit in the game now and average out their offense and defensive values and then divide by how many points you pay for that sum to get a mathematical value of their overall efficiency per point value.

It is most definitely not based off of an arbitrary value or baseline unit

It is based on taking the entire universe of the game and coming up with their overall effective score they garner divided by the points cost that you charge for them. Once you know their effective score by points you can assign them their appropriate or close to appropriate point cost.

Their offensive capability vs their defensive capability averaged out by their point cost and other misc factors like saving throws, movement, etc.

The GUO is 25% too cheap based on taking its numbers against EVERY UNIT IN THE GAME and finding its average score and how much it pays for its abilities by EVERY OTHER UNIT IN THE GAME. Thats math. There is NO subjective or opinion based criteria in this at all. Its taking a unit, stripping its identity away and taking its raw stats and finding its overall base value and then figuring out that base value x points paid = score.

Or to put it thusly

If I have 10 units and 7 of those units all score around a 25 and one of those units scores a 19 and two of those units score a 45, wherein the score is its total abilities based on the sum of its offense and defense, then you know that the 45 scores are really powerful. THATS OK!! What is not ok is if those 45s are scored as if they were 30s. THATS NOT OK.

It seems that people are hung up on these values being arbitrary and that someone just assigned letter grades based on opinon. NO. THATS NOT WHAT THOSE SCORES REPRESENT.

That website I point to are values taking EVERY UNIT and EVERY UNITS STATS and breaking them down to pure numbers and coming up with their scores and then taking those scores and applying how many points they pay. A GUO being 20% or whatever too cheap means simply that when you apply its abilities by THE POINTS THAT IT PAYS, that it DOES NOT PAY ENOUGH POINTS to meet the baseline which is the AVERAGE OF ALL UNITS AND WHAT THEY PAY put together.

Thats how you get Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3, Tier 4, Tier 5, etc. This is also a design paradign OPENLY ADMITTED TO by the design team going back to the mid 90s and reinforced again with Blood Bowl on their facebook that they INTENTIONALLY let things be under or over powered because *some people like to play with harder armies and some people like to play with easier teams*. This is a school of design that dates to Magic the Gathering, where they make purposely busted cards because they sell and some people like to play the game in a broken manner, but they leave it up to the players to sort that out themselves.

This is a topic that has been gone over over and over at every games day I have ever been at since the 90s up unitl they stopped doing them where that question is asked to whoever designers are present, with the same answer basically given every year for over a decade and a half. That we purposely (we = GW) let some things be broken because some people like that kind of thing and if you don't like it dont play with those people.

And again the guy that designed the points for GHB before it was GHB openly stated I made the points for monsters purposely a bit lower than they should be to ENCOURAGE THEIR USE.

NOW - the Great Unclean One example being 20% or whatever undercosted does not BY ITSELF BREAK THE GAME. (I'm using caps to emphasize key points). There are vastly worse things running about than a great unclean one. For me, I want things more or less +/- 10%. The GUO irks me being 20% because that is beyond my threshold of acceptability. But that is neither here nor there because we all know Auticus aint getting his way anytime soon.

There are worse offenders in the AOS world right now, such as a few broken formations and letting things like stormfiends be core choices. Those to me are vastly worse from a balance perspective than a great unclean one being 20% too cheap.

This is an exercise any of you can undertake should you desire. You simply key in every unit in the game's stats and use base statistical analysis (the kind of stuff they teach you in university) to get to the end conclusion. There have been a handful of guys, myself included, that set out to make points costs that all arrived at nearly the same conclusion.

It ultimately means nothing of course because a base 0 balanced game also does not sell because people don't want a base 0 balanced game, but also because in the 40 years I've been alive I have learned that despite providing numbers and methods and the like, just as in politics and religion, people will believe what they want. Convincing people that monsters are a tad too cheap, even after showing numbers and even after dude that wrote it said on their forums that yes he made them a tad too cheap, doesn't ultimately mean anything because the game will still go on as it has been and as it will be.

Whew. Happy Holidays \m/

Yes, I understand the theory. But what are some balance 0 units or armies then? Give me some examples.

And if you're just talking about that database thing you made once, I think I expressed my concerns with it enough as it fails to take into account range/movement/abilities/synergies/battalions and scenarios IIRC so I would disagree flat out with using your formula to define balance zero.

Lastly to clarify, SCGT comp was made by 3 people (not 1). One of those people is Russ Veal who I mentioned earlier as the tournament player citing that monsters are generally over costed now. If you compare SCGT monster prices with GHB prices you can spot a general trend for increasing the price.

Bottle I agree.

@Auticus I can't debate or even objectively review your numbers unless you know what your baseline is. I have no idea how these numbers were developed because some of them are mathematical based while others as you stated are completely subjective. There is no method to distinguishing between the two. I am not even sure which points values were used or if it has all the most current GHB points values.

In any scientific or mathematical model you always have a baseline to measure stuff from. That would allow everyone to at least comprehend the basis of the model. I have spent an hour looking at those numbers and to me it shows that every unit in the is undercosted. It even has a Hearld of Nurgle undercosted by 6.9%???? The unit closest to 0 that I could find was a branchwraith at 1.5% undercosted.

IF I understand the math correctly even at 900 points Nagash is 60% undercosted and should cost 1,440 points to be perfectly balanced even with the rule of one?? So with this are you advocating with this data everything get a points increase in relation the % to their overall score? If that is the case is the math even useful anymore?

Well I would *definitely* like to see how either of you would determine a baseline 0 unit in AOS.

Monsters in isolation are most definitely "overcosted" when you compare them to the busted formations that have broken any pretense of balance in the first place. Anything is overcosted in that scenario.

I wouldn't bother trying to find a balance 0 units because there are so many factors in AoS that can't be easily reduced to maths that making a workable formula seems basically impossible to me.

Instead I think that GW should continue doing exactly what began with Clash Comp through to SCGT Comp through to the General's handbook. Have someone with a wealth of tournament and high level play experience set an approximate value for each unit and then continually tweak it as people gain experience with the game and find the imbalances.

 auticus wrote:
Well I would *definitely* like to see how either of you would determine a baseline 0 unit in AOS.

I did look above. You have to figure out what the baseline units for your points are. Once you finalize the points and ensure those are all balanced with each other you calculate all units from those points values. This would take into account all stats and abilites.

The point being if you don't figure out what zero is first it means nothing. Clear units of measurement are always required in any graph. With the way your numbers are now it is impossible to understand it.

Does offensive/defensive rankings mean its actual ranking in relation to other units?
Are these rankings in relation to points?
Are the offensive rankings in relation to the average wounds caused or potential wounds caused?
What are the subjective values used in these calculation?
Etc..

It would be the same as me making a statement that an apple has a rating of 43.49 while an orange has a rating of 14.32. The first obvious questions are a rating of what and in relation to what. That is what we are asking.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@bottle. I played a lot of games with the SCGT comp system. It was hands down the single best comp system (in any game system) I had ever played. The balance was outstanding, every game was close and it felt like every list had a chance. After the SCGT event I know they made a few tweaks that made it even better. They took tournament players feedback and looked at the tournament results to verify intended results.

I already explained that in disgusting detail what those scores were. I'm not going to repeat myself.

Have someone with a wealth of tournament and high level play experience set an approximate value for each unit and then continually tweak it as people gain experience with the game and find the imbalances.

Which seems just as arbitrary, especially when those values aren't being adjusted (currently nothing has been adjusted and the busted stuff was obviously busted about a week or two after it dropped).

The whole community is dependent on a couple tournament guys adjusting points, and then just taking it up the rear when that arbitrary dart throw is erroneous and waiting (traditionally) years for an adjustment. That may be acceptable if you play in a min/max environment and are also bringing min/max lists, as the discrepancies aren't going to be nearly a quarter of what casuals or narrative players are going to be eating when they are bringing non tournament lists and facing off against TFG that shows up to every event with a competitive min/max list.

No I think we can do much better than that.

I think Matched Play should be balanced for tournaments first because that's what the game mode is designed for. If you are playing casual then ask your opponent to tone it down, or say you don't feel like playing their army as you feel you don't have a chance etc etc.

And I feel it's much better than a formula because those tournament players have a high level of experience with nuances that can't easily be reflected in a formula. The GHB isn't even 6 months old, GW have told us they are working on the second edition already and on the Warlords stream mentioned they might release an update every year. For me that's more than fast enough.