Should "Overpowered" models be given lesser stats or made unique/adept?

[Erion]

So what we've effectively got is a moot point when it comes to the Reven, since that change was introduced months ago when their book came out.

 

But when it comes the thing like Reptus Warriors, I was honestly expecting the change to adepts when their book came out, for the same reasoning. The models don't even look like basic warriors (see the Skull Breakers) they look like an elite troop, and play like an elite troop.

[Ranzadule]

Of course if they play Tomukh, but the sublist is too late. They are balanced by restriction on certain units as the cost, on having any of them and getting adepts cahnged back to grunts as the benefit. Or maybe I'm missing the point.

 

I'm going to get some tacohell...

[rcrosby]

Of course if they play Tomukh, but the sublist is too late. They are balanced by restriction on certain units as the cost, on having any of them and getting adepts cahnged back to grunts as the benefit. Or maybe I'm missing the point.

 

I'm going to get some tacohell...

Yeah, the point is, what is this poll referring to? Is it a general question, in which case considering things like Bull Orcs is valid, or are we only talking about something in particular? Is there another choice that isn't being mentioned: normally adept/unique but can be grunt/non-unique in a faction/sub-faction list? So far nothing has been changed from grunt/non-unique to adept/unique without some option that allows them to revert back to grunt/non-unique.

 

Rich

[Gimp]

Point cost should reflect viability and capability on the battlefield.

 

If you want to give a point break for a limited set of models (adepts over grunts), so long as all lists have that option in a balanced design, that's fine. The adept models will become commonplace in fielded armies due to the point break, which will frustrate some players, but it can maintain balance because of the limits and design.

 

If all lists are not equal in that design, models should only be priced based on actual capability. Making a model cost less than its stats show it is worth threatens the balance of the game, and will frustrate players whose list does not get an equivalent break.

 

Since adept models have obvious price breaks in some cases, removing the adept status in sub-lists invalidates the balance that allowed the price break. A model that gets a price discount because you can only field a few becomes an unbalanced unit when the fielding limit is removed. If you are competing, why field a standard list when a sub-list has an inherent advantage?

 

Making a model an adept over a grunt just because of specific skills or stats, but not balancing how armies can field units is not going to fix anything. If an adept is better than a grunt, and has a slight price break to offset the limited number that can be fielded, that can work. If an adept is an adept simply because of a skill or other stat, and there is no balancing aspect in the models available, you're creating an unviable army.

 

Controlling models by jacking the points out of line for what the model can do means the model will never get used. Dropping the points will mean they are always used for competitive armies, because unbalanced stats against cost is a competitive edge.

 

I found it intersting when I first started looking at the game that generic unit upgrades were priced with a sliding scale based on the wounds the upgraded model could take, yet the faction upgrades eliminated the scale. While that simplified army construction, it skewed the balance of the point structure. In most cases, it simply meant that upgrades are not worth the cost for most units, which may well have been the intent, but it also illustrates my point. If points are not balanced by actual capability, the unit's viability for the tabletop is compromised.

 

Units should be priced based on actual capability, and limited only for flavor. That allows sub-lists to maintain balance, and ensures overall balance.

Lists should have variety available for fielding, or players will be frustrated by the limits.

Regardless of the number of adept or grunt choices available, if the models are accurately priced based on actual capability, a viable force can be constructed.

[rcrosby]

But when it comes the thing like Reptus Warriors, I was honestly expecting the change to adepts when their book came out, for the same reasoning. The models don't even look like basic warriors (see the Skull Breakers) they look like an elite troop, and play like an elite troop.

Reptus warriors look exactly like Reptus longstrikers with sword and shield instead of spear. My "elite troop" has been smacked around handily trying to go toe to toe with Bull Orc Fighters and Overlord Warriors.

 

The only difference between Reptus warriors and skullbreakers is that the warriors can stand up to ranged attack while the skullbreakers drop like flies.

 

Rich

[Stubbdog]

I like the fact that Double E wanted to have this question posted, because it, I believe in the end, will show us the trouble points that the creators of Warlord go thru on a daily basis on trying to keep giving us new and interesting things while trying to keep them balanced and fair.

 

I think part of the problem, is that there are 10 going on 14 factions. And that they are trying to make every single miniature in the game have a differing stat. I like that they want to have each faction have its own feel and flair. But, to the point where it causes the game to kinda crash on itself with these kind of discussions =

 

(do you want to change the game completely by getting rid of adepts and changing the point costs or do you want to change the game completely by keeping the point costs and getting rid of grunts and making them adepts?)

 

When you have as mini miniatures as there are in the game and none of them can have matching values, it is going to make things a little complex and there will have to be exceptions to the rules even if they are following those same rules. Problem is there is also enough people with differing opinions as to which should or should not be exceptions.

 

 

 

I personally, am finished (for now) in trying to help make Reaper question their great game. I am going to accept their changes and focus my over analyzing habits back towards new force lists and ways to field a new perfect army or at least as best as I can.

 

Thanks.

[wildbill]

I am going to accept their changes and focus my over analyzing habits back towards new force lists and ways to field a new perfect army or at least as best as I can.

 

Thanks.

 

 

That sounds a lot like I do at work on a daily basis!!

 

I'm sure that nonnnnnnne of us are at work, using work's resources, to chat on this forum. Right?

 

My primary is Dwarves, and yes, the point costs for several models I use a lot went up. BUT...wow, what a difference the changes have made!! Thorvald was nigh impossible to shoot, my Warriors are now even more awesome than before, and Freya doesn't need armor, thus saving me 5 points on every list she is in!!

 

I had some initial concerns over changes to the Dwarves, and it turns out most of them were "oops" by EE, who since apologized and corrected his mistakes. I have no complaints. Thanks EE!

 

I am still ticked off at having two really expensive and wussy warlord figs. As far as I can tell, I have the two most expensive warlords in the game (base cost, not counting upgrades/spells). If I missed one, let me know!

 

I finally managed to calm my Reptus player down. I even got two new players out of the deal!! They were impressed by Reaper providing the changes for free!!!!

 

The only question they had, and one I couldn't answer very well, was when would Reaper update the existing faction books with the new changes?

 

Wild Bill

[Naterstein]

Power should be control via the point system, not by nerfing or special rules. IMHO>

[Akela]

Points are not the only way to measure Model effect on the battlefield.

 

Force Organization, the ability to pick and choose Models that harmonize and augment each other, is in no way related to point value. The only control on that is to, by definition, change Force Organization.

 

Before "points" there was only Force Organization, ask any historicals player, points cannot work by itself since it was developed to augment and compliment Force Organization.

[mooseyjoe]

But when it comes the thing like Reptus Warriors, I was honestly expecting the change to adepts when their book came out, for the same reasoning. The models don't even look like basic warriors (see the Skull Breakers) they look like an elite troop, and play like an elite troop.

Reptus warriors look exactly like Reptus longstrikers with sword and shield instead of spear. My "elite troop" has been smacked around handily trying to go toe to toe with Bull Orc Fighters and Overlord Warriors.

 

The only difference between Reptus warriors and skullbreakers is that the warriors can stand up to ranged attack while the skullbreakers drop like flies.

 

Rich

 

 

of course your warriors got smacked around, they are not as good as overlord or bull orc warriors. The overlords and orcs have mav + dv = 13, while our warriors only = 12.

 

The other difference between the warriors and the breakers is that the breakers have MAV 3, which allows them to drop the enemy like flies. We have some of the best breakers in the game. DV 9 isn't horrible, and our breakers actually have tough, which most breakers don't have.

 

 

The case with the reptus warriors wasn't that they were unbalanced for their points. Rather, they made possible a strategy which was deemed unbalanced. It's the same problem that archers had. For the most part they aren't unbalanced, but when you bring an army of nothing but archers, those archers become unbalanced.

[FreeFall]

Points are not the only way to measure Model effect on the battlefield.

 

Force Organization, the ability to pick and choose Models that harmonize and augment each other, is in no way related to point value. The only control on that is to, by definition, change Force Organization.

 

Before "points" there was only Force Organization, ask any historicals player, points cannot work by itself since it was developed to augment and compliment Force Organization.

Well that's exactly what I was going to say, but Matt beat me to it. This makes sense, since he's the one first pointed this out to me clearly when we started working on units for the faction books. Here's a great example: Overlord Crossbowmen.

 

Yeah they're archers so they should be adepts and yeah they have great stats, but points alone doesn't tell their story. Ranked is a powerful ability and makes or breaks them IMNSHO. Take a troop of 10 Crossbowmen and they fall pretty easily. Now take 5 O'lord warrios and 5 crossbowmen. Now take two troops of those. Those crossbowmen are going to live a significantly longer time and do more damage than the same 10 crossbowmen alone. That synergy between a high DV warrior and a range brutn that can attack THROUGH them is powerful. Points can't stop that, the only way to really balance it is by limitting the number of occurances of that synergy, because having two troops of that combo opens a wealth of tactical options.

[rcrosby]

Points are not the only way to measure Model effect on the battlefield.

 

Force Organization, the ability to pick and choose Models that harmonize and augment each other, is in no way related to point value. The only control on that is to, by definition, change Force Organization.

 

Before "points" there was only Force Organization, ask any historicals player, points cannot work by itself since it was developed to augment and compliment Force Organization.

Why, thanks for asking! All of the historical games I know use points and rules exclusively for balance. Any limits on force organization are used to try to coerce the army builds to look something like actual historical armies (in other words, the fluff!), not game balance.

 

Rich

[Akela]

Of course, something else I didn't mention, though I probably should, is that "Force Organization" alone was not enough.

 

Many older rules were written, with stats of the combatants structured in such as way as to try to make historical battles "replayable" - assuming (usually wrongly) that most military historical battles were "fair"... that a commander would take a force into battle, with a 50/50 chance of victory. In which case.. that particular commander was probably a sadistic fool that got a lot of good soldiers killed.

 

Wargames really do require both mechanics - force org (either structural or at the time the player chooses his or her models) and points - to ensure a playable game that will make a very strong attempt at a 50/50 chance of victory between two equal points armies and two players of equal skill.

[T'Sarith DeGaalth]

The first thing I thought of on seeing this was: How do you make Firestorm adept?

 

Another thing to consider in what is overpowered is the expected play style. If you balance models on the idea that you will be playing pitched battle scenarios (goal to kill/incapacitate the enemy) you get a different set of whats overpowered then if you are playing a campaign, than if you are playing a story scenario.

 

Now I don't know about anyone else, but I despise pitched battles (Its the roleplayer in me - there needs to be a better reason to be there than slaughter) and have always assumed Warlord was designed around campaign play (thus the inclusion of the campaign rules in the rulebook). When I have to come up with one shot battles I use story type scenarios.

 

But this gives different feels for what's Overpowered. Just off the top of my head:

Battles - overpowered figures gets lots of attacks, good ranged attacks and area effects. Things that let you cause lots of slaughter or kill things before they can hurn you

Campaigns - Things with high survivalbility get overpowered - High DV's, Lots of healing spells etc (Because you tend to get better the longer you survive in a campaign game

Story scenarios - THings that let you win easier. Which can vary from scenario to scenario. High movement or extra movement (Ranger) are frequently a problem - many scenarios require you to get a to a point or across the table or something similiar).

 

So, I have a hard time figuring out what is Overpowered because it can mean so many differnet things.

[spiritual_exorcist]

I hate to say it, but I prefer making a model adept to changing it's statistics, this question would be an outright clear and simple answer of 'don't adjust model statistics just to make a given model more readily available' from my perspective if the change didn't affect previously published datacards and models. The difficulty comes in deciding whether or not consolations should be made seeing as how moany people now have models they can't field without further expansion to the rules set in some way.