What are the most internally balanced books? What are the least internally balanced books?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • lawgnome wrote:

    Wow. No one likes giant rats and vermin hulks. Very interesting. I thought the rats at least made good chaff.
    not at ld 5, with ITP chaff for 10 points more.
    “You can never know everything, and part of what you know is always wrong. Perhaps even the most important part. A portion of wisdom lies in knowing that. A portion of courage lies in going on anyways.” -Lan Mandragoran, EotW


    Dovie’andi se tovya sagain.
  • Of the 4 armies I play.

    Internal Balance

    SA - 3/4 glaring issues, the rest is pretty good
    SE - I like the balance, but there are 1/2 unconvincing units
    ID - this one is very skewed, warmachines generally lacking, Titan, lugar, all on doubtfull situations.
    KoE - is terrible, on a small roster, there are enough units that don't work pretty much.
  • Regarding the internal Balance of HBE:

    I made an analysis of the different ETC-HBE-Lists.

    Here are the results:



    The numbers represent the percentage share of the various entries to the total number of armies.

    Would you call this a good internal balance?
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • Aegon wrote:

    Regarding the internal Balance of HBE:

    I made an analysis of the different ETC-HBE-Lists.

    Here are the results:



    The numbers represent the percentage share of the various entries to the total number of armies.

    Would you call this a good internal balance?
    That isn't too bad. To be honest I expected worse. Magic items slightly more skewed than I expected but if you were to look at similar distributions from other armies and include the basic items i wouldn't be surprised if you saw the same. Magic paths and Core is about as good as you can realistically expect. Other units are pretty balanced for the most part - there is a clear role for most of them.

    Honours on the other hand do need a bit of a fix.

    So yeah, looks like HbE are pretty internally balanced, not perfect but OK.
  • Throgg wrote:

    That isn't too bad. To be honest I expected worse. Magic items slightly more skewed than I expected but if you were to look at similar distributions from other armies and include the basic items i wouldn't be surprised if you saw the same. Magic paths and Core is about as good as you can realistically expect. Other units are pretty balanced for the most part - there is a clear role for most of them.
    Honours on the other hand do need a bit of a fix.

    So yeah, looks like HbE are pretty internally balanced, not perfect but OK.
    Hmm. Well when can you say a book is balanced enough? If you can use half the content in a competitive setting?
    Say for HbE you can use 75% of the units, 50% of the items, 50% of the honours and 15% of the character mounts. Is that good enough?

    That's why I asked if there is some internal balance score that you can give an army.
    Say HbE score = (5*% viable units + 1*% viable items + 1*% viable honours + 2*% viable mounts)/9?
    Which would be .. 56% .. that is already considered "good"?
    This forum need polls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Playing/painting: SA, DE & HbE ..
  • Teowulff wrote:

    Throgg wrote:

    That isn't too bad. To be honest I expected worse. Magic items slightly more skewed than I expected but if you were to look at similar distributions from other armies and include the basic items i wouldn't be surprised if you saw the same. Magic paths and Core is about as good as you can realistically expect. Other units are pretty balanced for the most part - there is a clear role for most of them.
    Honours on the other hand do need a bit of a fix.

    So yeah, looks like HbE are pretty internally balanced, not perfect but OK.
    Hmm. Well when can you say a book is balanced enough? If you can use half the content in a competitive setting?Say for HbE you can use 75% of the units, 50% of the items, 50% of the honours and 15% of the character mounts. Is that good enough?

    That's why I asked if there is some internal balance score that you can give an army.
    Say HbE score = (5*% viable units + 1*% viable items + 1*% viable honours + 2*% viable mounts)/9?
    Which would be .. 56% .. that is already considered "good"?
    We are comparing armies here, everything is relative.
  • Aegon wrote:

    Regarding the internal Balance of HBE:

    I made an analysis of the different ETC-HBE-Lists.

    Here are the results:



    The numbers represent the percentage share of the various entries to the total number of armies.

    Would you call this a good internal balance?
    Could you do this for Orcs and Goblins?

    O&G Community Support


    "I see you are a man who likes to talk. That is good, for I am a man who likes talking to a man who likes to talk." - Caspar Gutman
  • I really don't understand people saying O&G are at a good internal balance state. I find it pretty awfull, becouse the most of the competitive builds are almost identical:
    - 2 gargantulas are mandatory
    - lots of goblin archers, with plenty of mad gits
    - level 4 pyromanter
    - catapults, as much as possible.

    IMO, O&G are at horrible internal ballance. I don't play this army myself, but I know it fairly well.

    About my own army, Daemon Legions: it has pretty competitive builds right know, but the internal ballance is awfull.
    - Horrible units like father of pestilence, sky serpents, plaguelins, that see no play at all.
    - The 4 core choices are very unballanced. Most of time you include them becouse they are mandatory if you go monogod.
    - The magic items are specialy bad ballanced. Some of them you can see in every list, and the rest are never chosen.

    I have great expectations for the new book. I wish we could see some sneak peaks soon.
  • Good Internal Balance:
    BH

    Medium Internal Balance:
    DL
    Warriors
    HBE

    Bad Internal Balance:
    SA
    KoE
    EoS

    KoE are the most bad internal balance i think.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Biased nOOb perspective incoming.... :P

    Good Internal Balance:
    Display Spoiler

    OK
    BH
    DE (controversial, I know)


    Medium Internal Balance:
    Display Spoiler

    EoS
    HbE
    DH
    WotDG
    SE
    UD
    VS


    Bad Internal Balance:
    Display Spoiler

    ID
    KoE
    O&G
    SA
    VC
    DL
    <3 Stepping down to focus on the latest addition to the family! Three kids means we now form a complete rank! <3

  • Hmm i should do graphs for WDG too.
    " Des chercheurs qui cherchent, on en trouve. Des chercheurs qui trouvent, on en cherche " Charles de Gaulle
    " Si l'on bâtissait la maison du bonheur, la plus grande pièce en serait la salle d'attente " Jules Renard
    " Plus j'aime l'humanité en général, moins j'aime les gens en particulier " Fedor Dostoïevski
    " Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr
  • To compare the evolution with last year :






    " Des chercheurs qui cherchent, on en trouve. Des chercheurs qui trouvent, on en cherche " Charles de Gaulle
    " Si l'on bâtissait la maison du bonheur, la plus grande pièce en serait la salle d'attente " Jules Renard
    " Plus j'aime l'humanité en général, moins j'aime les gens en particulier " Fedor Dostoïevski
    " Only in the darkness can you see the stars " Martin Luther King Jr
  • Feelings from some users about the armies they own or know (or think to know) is a bad answer to this very good question, imho.

    I had a problem with this thread in the beginning and only @Aegon and @Teowulff started doing it right, imho. I think it's because they are comming from HBE subforum. ;) Really, no joke!
    @Calcathin has lead us through a really lengthy discussion resulting in THIS EXTENSIVE COLLECTION of internal and external rating of ALL units options of the HBE book, which took weeks (and is not completely done, yet). From this we can perfectly see the internal balance in the HBE book, we can even create statistics about how many of the options are rated excellent, good, average, subpar and never taken (even with intermediate ratings).

    If we had such ratings for all other books, we could start to compare! (Or we start counting the options taken in one/some tournaments, but as said team events, local meta, special scenarios and other things make these problematic.)

    Second good question that has already risen up, is, when a book can be called internally well balanced. In theory, if in a book all units are equally strong options, but only one is never taken and one is an autopick. Is it a balanced book? Or a book, where 50% of the units are slightly better and 50% of the units are slightly worse (but all units are more or less still ok for a competetive power level... as long as you take only few of the worse ones and mostly from the better ones), is it ok?
    If one book is of more or less of the first type and one book is more or less of the second type, which one is better balanced?

    Third question, concerning the graphs. Even if a book is 100% internally balanced. Wouldn't the graphs not look like as exponential as the ones shown in the last posts only by the influence of the "meta"? Regarding ETC, is there even some metameta?? ^^

    The post was edited 6 times, last by teclis2000 ().

  • teclis2000 wrote:

    Second good question that has already risen up, is, when a book can be called internally well balanced. In theory, if in a book all units are equally strong options, but only one is never taken and one is an autopick. Is it a balanced book? Or a book, where 50% of the units are slightly better and 50% of the units are slightly worse (but all units are more or less still ok for a competetive power level... as long as you take only few of the worse ones and mostly from the better ones), is it ok?
    If one book is of more or less of the first type and one book is more or less of the second type, which one is better balanced?

    For me a book is balanced if

    a) Different Units for different roles (Chaff , Anvil , Cannon (offensive Units maybe wrong word) , Glass Canon and so on) an not every book need every job
    b) for every role every unit that can take this job is equal to each other
    c) Prefered playstyles are nearly on same level
    d) Units can change jobs if adding Options

    You don´t need all units on same power level.

    For example it is not fair to compare a 0-1 unit with a unit you can taken as often you want. Mostly the unit you can take 5 or 6 times is % more taken then a 0-1 unit.

    Head of Playtesting

    Lord of Chaos , Duke of Equitaine , Cuatl of the Golden City , Herold of the Empire , Summoner of Pestilence , Lord of the Sea WotdG,KoE,SA,EoS, and DL and new HE but with Dragon Empire Ordo Sanctae Mariae Teutonicorum
  • Archeron wrote:

    For me a book is balanced if

    a) Different Units for different roles (Chaff , Anvil , Cannon (offensive Units maybe wrong word) , Glass Canon and so on) an not every book need every job
    b) for every role every unit that can take this job is equal to each other
    c) Prefered playstyles are nearly on same level
    d) Units can change jobs if adding Options
    I have problems with a) and b), your definition is not covering hybrid units. Or is each hybrid role a role for itself? If not, does a hybrid unit have to be as strong as the ones of pure roles from which the hybrid role derives from?
    Best example I know is Sea Guard... never taken because it is worse than a unit of spearelves + a unit of archers for the same points. To be as strong as spearelves in combat, SG has to be almost the same price (cheap bodies for elves), together with the ability to shoot this can hardly be achieved.

    c) is a good point.

    d)... is a unit with two different options not more or less two units?

    Archeron wrote:

    You don´t need all units on same power level.
    I would say the converse is true (of course power level regarding point costs and from which category these points are coming).

    The post was edited 1 time, last by teclis2000 ().