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.

  • Archeron wrote:

    You don´t need all units on same power level.
    It depends on what you mean with power level.

    1.) If you mean only the the strength of the unit to fulfil their intended role, then I agree with you.

    2.) If you mean the efficiency of the unit (The relation between strength and price/availability = efficiency), then I disagree with you, because the efficiency should be almost equal.
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"
  • strength is mostly connected to how good units get there points back.

    But there are units to block , hunt WM , only do chaff jobs , do an anvil job.

    If you say all on same power level this would mean every unit has the same change to get there points back in a game but cause of jobs this can´t be reached or better should not be reached. Sure there are silly games were the Anvil or chaff get more points then offensive units.m But this has to be seen in another light.

    So it is more 1 then 2. But explanation some post before was about every unit is on same powerlevel to every unit.

    Co 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
  • Stunt wrote:

    agree with spoons views, to add to the fire DE have placed in the top 3, for the last couple of tournaments ive been to(different list and players).

    last weekend had DE come first in a 20 man 3000 points tournament.
    Yep, and it was an army with average T4 and average Save ~3+. Totally representative of DE. It's 3000 points, it doesn't mean anything for balance.

    If you look at the performance of DE at major tournaments, great players do decently, but they're playing gunlines, which is going to be a disallowed playstyle. (Buckeye Battles: top 3 DE players are gunlines, best at ~7th was @Murphy with his ETC list. There's pretty much no way that list survives the book rewrite).

    Only 8 teams brought DE to ETC. It's not hard to see why.

    And really, 20-man tournaments (even if it was 4.5k) are too small to get good data from, it's too easy for any placement by any army to be a fluke with 20 players (and presumably only 3 rounds). You need ~50-60 people with 5 rounds to start getting good data, and there aren't nearly enough of those tournaments as singles tournaments.

    But 1 in 20 is pure statistical fluke territory, because that's the limits of statistical confidence.

    Also: external balance is not internal balance. These are totally separate things.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

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

  • Archeron wrote:

    strength is mostly connected to how good units get there points back.
    I don't see it that way.

    As I wrote I see it in the ability to fulfil their intended role and this doesn't mean to get their points back, but you already mentioned some other ways:


    Archeron wrote:

    But there are units to block , hunt WM , only do chaff jobs , do an anvil job.

    Let's take a look at the strengths that a chaff unit would need to do its job:

    - relatively cheap
    - fast and mobile

    If you look at the HBE-Great Eagle, you can see that the price is low (100Points) and the mobility is very high (Fly(9)).

    Therefore it is a good unit, which is the reason it is taken quite a lot.

    So I consider a Great Eagle as a unit with a high power lvl = efficiency is good.
    Furion about our SeaGuard (V.0.202.0): "I don't expect much of them, and indeed not much have they delivered"

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

  • Aegon wrote:

    Archeron wrote:

    strength is mostly connected to how good units get there points back.
    I don't see it that way.
    As I wrote I see it in the ability to fulfil their intended role and this doesn't mean to get their points back, but you already mentioned some other ways:


    Archeron wrote:

    But there are units to block , hunt WM , only do chaff jobs , do an anvil job.
    Let's take a look at the strengths that a chaff unit would need to do its job:

    - relatively cheap
    - fast and mobile

    If you look at the HBE-Great Eagle, you can see that the price is low (100Pounts) and the mobility is very high (Fly(9)).

    Therefore it is a good unit, which is the reason it is taken quite a lot.

    So I consider a Great Eagle as a unit with a high power lvl = efficiency is good.
    yes you are right.

    But also Elein Reavers are good:

    More expansive 180 (190 with bow) to 100 ( Great Eagle)
    Movement 9 but not flying
    But they can shoot and this makes them to good Chaff killer , were the Eagle leaks a bit , still good but less life and special were Elein Reavers are core.

    Booth can do same Job but with different ways and on different point costs but booth are on a "High Power Level" means two units different but nearly same power level = good balance.

    Co 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
  • And reavers can chaff up several units when deployed in a line.

    But reavers are a good example for fulfilling a hybrid role of chaff and being chaff hunter itself... but I don't think that HBE units should be the topic here. The question for me is, with knowledge of the HBE internal balance, how is it compared to other armies. Certainly, HBE is somewhere in the middle. But how do you want to compare and rate internal balance of the other books?

    The post was edited 3 times, last by teclis2000 ().

  • While the language is a bit technical, I think some engagement of force organization theory could help in our evaluations. Check my sig for an introductory article on force organization theory if y'all are interested.
    "I know my own soul, how feeble and puny it is: I know the magnitude of this ministry, and the great difficulty of the work; for more stormy billows vex the soul of the priest than the gales which disturb the sea." --John Chrysostom

    Force Organization Theory
  • teclis2000 wrote:

    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??
    ETC are our only source of mass competitive data available at the moment. And IIRC ETC are one of main drives behind this game. Ignoring data from ETC because it is 'special meta' will leave us in the dark. However you are right - the shape shall be more or less similar however we should aim at flattering it as much as possible. What is important is what units are in the well represented part. If those are units considered basic for an army it is all OK. However if a special support unit outpaces total of two most popular cores, and at the same time other specials get 0 attention there is something not right there.

    I believe some statistics could be used here. Variance could be used to identify which armies have inner balance mostly disturbed. However a question appears what shall we calculate it to: point value or used unit allowance. Graph for allowance of VS. A bit different picture it is...

    Homebrew: Hetmanate of Ukray_____________Report your battle results using mobile app: T9A Magic Flux!