What SE currently lacks

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

  • Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)

    The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.

    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.

    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)

    HR Team

    ID LAB Coordinator


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

  • Thicket beasts are point for point arguably the best monstrous infantry in the game. 4+ armour 5+ ward is incredibly well protected compared to most monstrous infantry. This save is statistically better than Hold Guardians, let that sink in.

    Offensive wise they have decent Ws and Ds of 4, which is higher than most but lower than some. They even have agi 3! Meaning they actually strike before or simo with most things in the game on the charge. Pair this with their above average damage output, and the fact they're stubborn and have even higher damage output when in the woods. The only thing thickets lack is options for a musician and standard, both of which are fixed by the addition of a shepherd.

    Theres a reason thickets are the backbone of tree lists. They are without a doubt one of the best monstrous infantry in the game, and they deserve the price they're at.
  • @Falco

    The simplest way to understand the project pricing is to start with the goals of the pricing.
    A zeroth order summary is something like this:

    For the project the goals are roughly
    • Make the best lists from different books have broadly similar win rates (external balance).
    • Make the best lists from each book contain vaguely reasonable usage of the different elements (internal balance).
    Everything follows from this starting point. (And if one has different goals, one would price things differently).
    If the best lists from a book are at the right external power level, and a unit is used often in those lists, then it is either at the right price or (more likely) underpriced, by definition. The only way it could get a discount is to increase the price of other elements in those 4500pt lists (which would be particularly weird if those other units saw less usage).
    It actually doesn't matter what the unit's attributes are, whether any individual thinks those attributes are *worth* the points cost, or what the prices of any other units in the game are, because those considerations are all irrelevant for achieving the two goals above (these things might correlate, or act as imperfect proxies, but there is no necessary connection).

    (I've glossed over some nuances, cos I don't have time and I'm not sure a super detailed version is useful or appropriate here, but this is a pretty reasonably big picture description of the concept).
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.

    Because context matters. A unit that gives another unit +1 Aim is of much less value in WDG than in OK.


    External balance is "does the best 4500 point army this book can produce work as well as the best 4500 point army THAT book can produce?".


    Or here's another way: in book A, core is 10% overpriced and people take about 1125 points of it pretty much every game, effectively playing 4400 point lists. In book B, everything is about 3% overpriced, so people effectively play... 4400 point lists.

    Book B looks like it has underpriced core, and Book A looks like it has underpriced special units and characters, but the two books are balanced against each other.

    But if we "fix" only one unit from Book B or Book A, that would make the book with the "fixed" unit relatively OP. Not necessarily by a lot, but it's still less balanced than the "unfair" version.


    That said, there are sweet f-all units which are actually identical in two books. Like, even Skeletons have different rates for being raised (as well as different interactions with various other options in the book).


    And if people are "commonly using" overpriced units and winning with them, how can you possibly say they are overpriced? More likely is that you are simply wrong about them being overpriced.

    Background Team

  • Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)
    The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.

    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.

    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)

    I think your example nicely shows why this kind of hard coded, conditional synergy is problematic. It adds very strong correlation to otherwise separate entries that make it impossible to balance them correctly.
    I would prefer if the game would stay away from that as much as possible. Synergy emerges naturally when units with different strengths and weaknesses are fielded together.

    I know this isn't really related to the point you were making, but I thought I might steal your example to make my own point. :P
  • Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)
    The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.

    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.
    No those zombies have to cost the exact same in all three and so does they necron, but his ability of giving the buffs needs to be a separate option that can be priced independently and needs to be data driven to achieve.


    If player one wants to take only those zombies he is gimped and he needs to switch armies to do so.

    My argument why this pricing strategy does not work is a more concrete example then in an actual book. The skeletons in the VC book are overpriced by a lot and no one takes them. They have been severely overpriced for multiple years and with no adjustments to their price. They are fine in four units with three necro but otherwise they are overpriced. The VC player can not play the skeletons in an even match.

    The thing you are doing is pricing lists or groups of units and not individual units. You then can not have a points system but a lists system. Let players choose between a couple of lists and these can then be balanced so, but individual choices can not.


    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    No it proves nothing. I have seen multiple dwarf engineers only to carry rockets and scout inside rangers. It was effective but yes overpriced, still scary against my list. Why does they dwarf have to pay to get a synergy he will not use. Synergies are extra additions on top that can not go into pricing in a fair game unless each is priced separately.

    This only proves that there can be a perfect equilibrium between your hypothetical zombies only and zombies with one necro. As soon as the second player chooses to not take the hypothetical necro it breaks down and he has no game. You can not price for this but need to first balance the choices equally and then balance the factors that make them unequal.


    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)

    I keep wanting to explain it but can never find the time to. There ate just too many factors to determine pricing by data and no analysis can give you correct results. These factors are
    mainly the impossibility to collect enough correct data. RPS has a bigger effect then external balance skewing everything. Player skill also has a huge effect. Meta and current worth is different to worth of units at a later/earlier period even by prices not changing. These two alone do not allow any meaningful data and the data that can be collected is about the list and not about the individual elements in the list. Even then people take choices which are overpriced on purpose skewing results further.


    I was very surprised before by you stating that the pricing can be used to promote certain aspects of lists. If this is so then it is not a fully automated approach but there are some factors using human input?

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

  • Arrahed wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.

    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.

    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)
    I think your example nicely shows why this kind of hard coded, conditional synergy is problematic. It adds very strong correlation to otherwise separate entries that make it impossible to balance them correctly.
    I would prefer if the game would stay away from that as much as possible. Synergy emerges naturally when units with different strengths and weaknesses are fielded together.

    I know this isn't really related to the point you were making, but I thought I might steal your example to make my own point. :P
    I believe the pricing system Serwyn describes can also apply to the types of unit synergies you describe as well Arrahed. Here is as an extreme example:

    Imagine two armies that are very similar and primarily focus on Infantry (Army A & Army B). Imagine Army A has access to a 0-1 flying monster called a "Flumph" and that Army B has the exact same "Flumph" as a 0-1 unit entry as well as an additional 0-2 flying monster entry called a "Stickerdoodle" and maybe even a 0-2 unit of flying monstrous cavalry called "What-its". Would Army A 's "Flumph" be nearly as effective in a list when compared to Army B's "Flumph"?

    Army B can better support its "Flumph", and even without hard coded effects/auras/abilities that benefit the "Flumph" Army B has other units with similar movement abilities and profiles (the "Stickerdoodles" & "What-its") and thus can create a compounding effect on a battlefield, i.e. a flying circus. Is Army A's "Flumph" as effective and worth the same amount of points as Army B's "Flumph", even though they are the exact same unit entry?

    Is there a way to make both versions of the "Flumph" balanced with one another and cost exactly the same amount of points?

    The only way I personally can think of outside points values would be using army categories to force Army B to only be able to take a single "Flumph" and no other monsters, but what if it was core to Army B's fluff/design goals that it be able to take a "Flumph" and along with some of the other monsters and that Army A can only ever have 0-1 Flumph, what other options exist then?

    Edit - On the matter of hardcoded abilities/auras/effects making the units they buff cost more. I agree that it shouldn't raise the price of the the unit that benefits from the buff but instead have the unit that provides the buff appropriately costed. The ideal would be that you can take a unit entry without the other unit entries that buff it and have it perform its function well for its price, with the buffing unit either adding new functions to its target or making the target unit more powerful at the cost of sinking points into a buff unit that isn't good on its own, of course achieving this is easier said than done.

    SE Community Support

    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated May 10, 2021

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

  • funkyfellow wrote:

    Arrahed wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.
    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.

    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)
    I think your example nicely shows why this kind of hard coded, conditional synergy is problematic. It adds very strong correlation to otherwise separate entries that make it impossible to balance them correctly.I would prefer if the game would stay away from that as much as possible. Synergy emerges naturally when units with different strengths and weaknesses are fielded together.

    I know this isn't really related to the point you were making, but I thought I might steal your example to make my own point. :P
    I believe the pricing system Serwyn describes can also apply to the types of unit synergies you describe as well Arrahed. Here is as an extreme example:
    Imagine two armies that are very similar and primarily focus on Infantry (Army A & Army B). Imagine Army A has access to a 0-1 flying monster called a "Flumph" and that Army B has the exact same "Flumph" as a 0-1 unit entry as well as an additional 0-2 flying monster entry called a "Stickerdoodle" and maybe even a 0-2 unit of flying monstrous cavalry called "What-its". Would Army A 's "Flumph" be nearly as effective in a list when compared to Army B's "Flumph"?

    Army B can better support its "Flumph", and even without hard coded effects/auras/abilities that benefit the "Flumph" Army B has other units with similar movement abilities and profiles (the "Stickerdoodles" & "What-its") and thus can create a compounding effect on a battlefield, i.e. a flying circus. Is Army A's "Flumph" as effective and worth the same amount of points as Army B's "Flumph", even though they are the exact same unit entry?

    Is there a way to make both versions of the "Flumph" balanced with one another and cost exactly the same amount of points?

    The only way I personally can think of outside points values would be using army categories to force Army B to only be able to take a single "Flumph" and no other monsters, but what if it was core to Army B's fluff/design goals that it be able to take a "Flumph" and along with some of the other monsters and that Army A can only ever have 0-1 Flumph, what other options exist then?

    Edit - On the matter of hardcoded abilities/auras/effects making the units they buff cost more. I agree that it shouldn't raise the price of the the unit that benefits from the buff but instead have the unit that provides the buff appropriately costed. The ideal would be that you can take a unit entry without the other unit entries that buff it and have it perform its function well for its price, with the buffing unit either adding new functions to its target or making the target unit more powerful at the cost of sinking points into a buff unit that isn't good on its own, of course achieving this is easier said than done.
    Yes both of flumps should cost the same.

    The fact that a flying circus consisting of a flump and a stickerdoodle is possible does not mean or should mean that the flump choice only should be underpowered. Are you suggesting that a flying circus has an advantage over infantry units that the flump can take?
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    Because context matters. A unit that gives another unit +1 Aim is of much less value in WDG than in OK. Really, I would have never guessed that. What makes you think so? What does this have to do with the cost of fornsworn or bruises?

    External balance is "does the best 4500 point army this book can produce work as well as the best 4500 point army THAT book can produce?". And then force everyone to play the best list and no variety in lists.


    Or here's another way: in book A, core is 10% overpriced and people take about 1125 points of it pretty much every game, effectively playing 4400 point lists. In book B, everything is about 3% overpriced, so people effectively play... 4400 point lists.

    Book B looks like it has underpriced core, and Book A looks like it has underpriced special units and characters, but the two books are balanced against each other.
    This makes no sense, book B would have an advantage since it can only take core and be done with it.


    But if we "fix" only one unit from Book B or Book A, that would make the book with the "fixed" unit relatively OP. Not necessarily by a lot, but it's still less balanced than the "unfair" version.
    No it would not. This would not cause anything since that unit might not even be taken. Are you saying that a player then must select certain units to have a balanced list? What is the point in points.

    That said, there are sweet f-all units which are actually identical in two books. Like, even Skeletons have different rates for being raised (as well as different interactions with various other options in the book). Yes this has been purposefully done. It's a shame really.


    And if people are "commonly using" overpriced units and winning with them, how can you possibly say they are overpriced? More likely is that you are simply wrong about them being overpriced.
    Very easily.
  • @Bogi

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is well accepted for a variety of reasons that when an army is able to spam a specific type of unit the cost-effectiveness of said unit increases exponentially i.e. don't take 1 monster, take 3. Are you suggesting that being capable of taking 3 or more flying monsters in an army is just as strong as taking a single flying monster?

    SE Community Support

    A Sylvan Elves Homebrew Full Army Book - last updated May 10, 2021
  • IMO if army A can field only a monster and army B can field 3 of them, if the monsters have the same stats they should be priced exactly the same. If you price more B monsters they will be not cost/efficient if picked individually and this is part of the problem SE have with their archers.
    That said army A should be better somewhere else, otherwise there's somethingh wrong in the design.
  • funkyfellow wrote:

    @Bogi

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is well accepted for a variety of reasons that when an army is able to spam a specific type of unit the cost-effectiveness of said unit increases exponentially i.e. don't take 1 monster, take 3. Are you suggesting that being capable of taking 3 or more flying monsters in an army is just as strong as taking a single flying monster?

    Not only is it not always the same strength but it can also be weaker or stronger, like when facing an EoS army with double cannons or my VS army. Are three flying monsters better then when facing a standard battle against a standard enemy? What is a standard enemy anyway when the game forces you to take three of something to have a competitive force, as you said one is over costed? RPS is being increased again.

    This game, at the moment, promotes light troops over rank and file infantry. Two of the consequences of the way the game is balanced pushes it to this to be so, but there are other reasons as well.
  • To all, I reiterate the sentence from my last post.
    The best way to understand the pricing is to start with the goals.

    There is no point (haha!) saying that pricing should do X or should do Y until one has defined why prices exist and what they should achieve.
    There is no single "God-given" set of pricing goals, just different choices that will result in different features/attributes/games.

    Many (all?) of the sentences where people are saying "pricing should" or "pricing shouldn't" are because people implicitly have different goals to those I posted above.
    So of course one will think pricing should be done differently.

    The question is whether one can explicitly articulate what one's goals are; present a complete, concrete, actionable and practicable system that would achieve these goals; and then make a case that as a system it has fewer drawbacks and more benefits than the exiting system.

    Because believe me, the existing system isn't perfect... anyone telling you it is is wrong... it is just that no-one has yet presented one that is better (and convinced the project of this fact) :)
    (Every system will cause problems and produce results that any individual doesn't agree with... therefore the existence of results that an individual does not agree with is not an argument against the system. Any argument against the system has to encompass the totality of results, and is best achieved by comparing two systems).


    @Bogi
    I think there is nothing about the project's pricing process that necessarily promotes single models over rank and file.
    There were times during 2.0 when I was on RT and I was receiving complaints that monsters weren't worth their points.
    Indeed, when DL was first released, the level of complaining about the gigantic models and blazing glories etc was off the charts... now somehow they are the go to entries for many people... could it be that people's initial evaluations were wrong... ;)
    But when the project doesn't react to people'\s initial evaluations during an early LAB beta period it gets attacked for not listening... as usual it comes back to my comment above. One must compare systems against each other for the totality of their results.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE

    The post was edited 2 times, last by DanT ().

  • Bogi wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    Because context matters. A unit that gives another unit +1 Aim is of much less value in WDG than in OK. Really, I would have never guessed that. What makes you think so? What does this have to do with the cost of fornsworn or bruises?


    I started with the most obviously correct example possible (an army with good shooting that's not very accurate vs. an army with shooting that's just plain bad).

    Because your argument is that it's impossible for a unit to be better in one army book than in another.


    Because here's the thing: it's entirely possible the "fair" price for some units will be (roughly) the same in two different books. But if you want to argue "these two units should cost the same because they do the same things" you have to argue that it's impossible for a unit to be better in one book than another.

    Otherwise, you have to argue the specifics - not just that the units are similar, but that they have similar value to the books.

    External balance is "does the best 4500 point army this book can produce work as well as the best 4500 point army THAT book can produce?". And then force everyone to play the best list and no variety in lists.


    No, what you're complaining about there is internal balance. External balance is about the best lists from each book; Internal balance is about how many different "more or less the best" lists a book has.

    A book could have ten thousand equally powerful lists, or just one, and it doesn't matter - the external balance will be calibrated to the best list(s).


    "Fairness" doesn't increase internal balance. It doesn't increase list diversity. Price hiking units in other books because a similar unit is good in SE doesn't give those other books more builds, it gives them less.

    If you want variety of lists? You want "unfair" cross-book pricing, because that way units cost what they're worth, not what some ideologue insists they should cost.

    Or here's another way: in book A, core is 10% overpriced and people take about 1125 points of it pretty much every game, effectively playing 4400 point lists. In book B, everything is about 3% overpriced, so people effectively play... 4400 point lists.

    Book B looks like it has underpriced core, and Book A looks like it has underpriced special units and characters, but the two books are balanced against each other.
    This makes no sense, book B would have an advantage since it can only take core and be done with it.




    Spamming core in book B doesn't make their lists stronger; their core is 3% overpriced, same as everything else. Book B is literally incapable of making a list that's effectively stronger than 4400 points.


    The difference is that Book A can make lists that are *weaker* than 4400 points by taking too much core. But if Book A players build an optimal list (min core), Book B cannot make a list stronger than theirs (because Book A's everything-that-is-not-core is underpriced relative to Book B)


    (Remember, Book A's core is massively overpriced, but their characters, specials and limited categories are *not*, whereas Book B is overpriced across the board; book B has more *different* viable builds, but it's not *stronger*)


    But if we "fix" only one unit from Book B or Book A, that would make the book with the "fixed" unit relatively OP. Not necessarily by a lot, but it's still less balanced than the "unfair" version.
    No it would not. This would not cause anything since that unit might not even be taken. Are you saying that a player then must select certain units to have a balanced list? What is the point in points.


    The *book* would be OP. Not every conceivable list. Like, pick the most disgustingly overpowered "wow, you really need to increase sales this quarter" book that wargaming has ever put out. Now try to build the worst possible list imaginable from that book - designed to lose, taking whatever is worst or works worst together.


    That list probably won't be OP, even though the book is OP.


    A book with OP units in it is OP. You can build fair armies from OP books - that's what army Comp rules tried to enforce on WHFB! - but that doesn't make the *book* not OP.




    If you want a balanced list - defined as one that's as powerful as the strongest lists buildable from both your book and those of all other books - yes, you need to actually exercise some discretion and intentionally build a list that does what it does well.


    That's the nature of list-building games; we cannot make every single imaginable configuration of 4500 points equally viable, and it's utter insanity to imagine we could.


    External balance is about the best lists. Internal balance is about making sure there's as many best lists as possible. If everyone has to play the exact same list, the book has utterly terrible internal balance.


    But the way to fix bad internal balance is to make the units that nobody wants to play are better. Not taking the units that people do want to play and adjusting their price because of some misguided quest to be "fair".




    That said, there are sweet f-all units which are actually identical in two books. Like, even Skeletons have different rates for being raised (as well as different interactions with various other options in the book). Yes this has been purposefully done. It's a shame really.


    And if people are "commonly using" overpriced units and winning with them, how can you possibly say they are overpriced? More likely is that you are simply wrong about them being overpriced.
    Very easily.

    Background Team

  • Arrahed wrote:

    Serwyn wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Falco wrote:

    Talking about our wood friends:
    Are TB and treeman a little bit expensive for that atributes? Compared with another monsters or monstruos infantery...
    Appart from everyone with pyro banners or able to take alchemy...
    TB are 20 points more expensive than one year ago
    I guess that's the way things go, units which are commonly used get point increases regardless of external balance. TB have great stats for their cost, probably the best in the game but are very slow and immobile. Most people in charge of 9th seem to think units which have the same stats do not need to be priced the same in different books, I have no idea why and I have spent the lats few days contemplating why but the reason still eludes me. This idea of units with the same effectiveness costing differently is like the anathema to external balance. I'm trying so hard to try and fathom how the same unit can have a different playstyle in different armies. I don't even know the definition of playstyle and I have been playing this for ages, the idea of playstyle is very wierd and too flexible to actually define or try to create. Then on the other hand command groups, magic level upgrades and items cost the same between books somehow. The 9th team have a vision and this vision has brought us a great game, however I will continue to abuse it's shortcomings in competitivene events.
    I can explain again :)The objectif of external balance is that each army has about 50% winrate. The process in charge of achieving it is mostly automatic and data driven, to achieve it without biais.

    Now take an extreme example. Suppose army 1 has access to zombies, and a necromancer Lord that gives +2 attacks and 6 os/DS to zombies he joins.That's very strong.
    Now army 2 has access to the exact same zombies but not the necromancer lord and army 3 has access to the necromancer and not the zombies. (Of course it would make no sense from a game design pov, but it's to give a clear example).
    Now in order to stay balanced, of course units of army 1 should cost a lot because it is really strong. If you charge the premium on zombies then army and decide to price zombies of army 2 the same, then army two won't have a chance against army 1. The same is true with army 3 if you charge the premium on the necromancer.

    This proves there exists situations where achieving balance is not compatible with charging similar units the same price. The example is not natural but it would work the same with implicit synergies rather than explicit synergies. For example with engineers in an army with catapults, canons, balistes or in an army with only balists. Same entries but better synergies.

    Anyway the point is to explain why uneven pricing across armies is compatible with balancing.
    The most important point is : The process is algorithmic and data driven. Nobody really choses the price of a unit, except in the first iteration. And it happens that this process leads to uneven pricing for similar units.

    If you think it's abnormal, then please explain why the process is flawed or inconsistent and why uneven pricing is incompatible with balancing. That's onto you :)
    I think your example nicely shows why this kind of hard coded, conditional synergy is problematic. It adds very strong correlation to otherwise separate entries that make it impossible to balance them correctly.
    I would prefer if the game would stay away from that as much as possible. Synergy emerges naturally when units with different strengths and weaknesses are fielded together.

    I know this isn't really related to the point you were making, but I thought I might steal your example to make my own point. :P

    The example does nothing of the sort.

    Those units are fairly easy to cost correctly; they just have different values in different books. This is true of less obvious examples, it's just that it's harder for people to understand why the value is different.

    "Natural" synergy is what's a nightmare to cost. It's easy enough to ballpark an initial value for "adding Lightning Reflexes to that unit, with a hoop of about so much difficulty". Costing the value of chaff access in a gunline, working out how valuable monsters are in a book that can take max 30% monsters, working out how much of a rebate is fair for "you may only field infantry in this book"... those are hard.


    There is always always always going to be strong correlations. The question is going to be whether you're well-informed enough to know what they are.

    Strong "artificial" synergies are useful because they signpost things. They tell players "this and this go together" rather than relying on the player managing to learn how to build good lists as well as how to play them well (and often getting trapped in a faulty feedback loop where the fact they don't know how to play better lists properly keep shoving them into playing flawed lists).

    Oh, and because they make for more flavourful gameplay. The "natural" synergy between giant birds and archery is nothing of the sort; eagles chaff nicely because they were artificially given traits in a rule-set such that they chaff nicely, it's not inherent to the concept of a big eagle that it should be able to chaff nicely. A game system where small flappy units are useless for slowing big chunky ones, but small units of javelineers were actually good at it, would produce completely different "natural synergies".


    The entire game is artificial. The difference is whether you, personally, can see the strings.

    Background Team

  • DanT wrote:

    To all, I reiterate the sentence from my last post.
    The best way to understand the pricing is to start with the goals.

    There is no point (haha!) saying that pricing should do X or should do Y until one has defined why prices exist and what they should achieve.
    There is no single "God-given" set of pricing goals, just different choices that will result in different features/attributes/games.

    Many (all?) of the sentences where people are saying "pricing should" or "pricing shouldn't" are because people implicitly have different goals to those I posted above.
    So of course one will think pricing should be done differently.

    The question is whether one can explicitly articulate what one's goals are; present a complete, concrete, actionable and practicable system that would achieve these goals; and then make a case that as a system it has fewer drawbacks and more benefits than the exiting system.

    Because believe me, the existing system isn't perfect... anyone telling you it is is wrong... it is just that no-one has yet presented one that is better (and convinced the project of this fact) :)
    (Every system will cause problems and produce results that any individual doesn't agree with... therefore the existence of results that an individual does not agree with is not an argument against the system. Any argument against the system has to encompass the totality of results, and is best achieved by comparing two systems).


    @Bogi
    I think there is nothing about the project's pricing process that necessarily promotes single models over rank and file.
    There were times during 2.0 when I was on RT and I was receiving complaints that monsters weren't worth their points.
    Indeed, when DL was first released, the level of complaining about the gigantic models and blazing glories etc was off the charts... now somehow they are the go to entries for many people... could it be that people's initial evaluations were wrong... ;)
    But when the project doesn't react to people'\s initial evaluations during an early LAB beta period it gets attacked for not listening... as usual it comes back to my comment above. One must compare systems against each other for the totality of their results.
    Good post! As to why I feel that the balance method promotes light troops is because there are more light troops then ranked troops, hence if you want them to be equally represented then you are pushing things towards light troops. Things do not have to be equally represented. Core units, as in the core of the army not the core section, need to be ranked troops as this is a rank and file game not AoS. So you need to promote the usage of ranked troops over support troops, and maybe there can be more support troop options but they do not have to be equally represented.
  • Bogi wrote:

    Good post! As to why I feel that the balance method promotes light troops is because there are more light troops then ranked troops, hence if you want them to be equally represented then you are pushing things towards light troops. Things do not have to be equally represented. Core units, as in the core of the army not the core section, need to be ranked troops as this is a rank and file game not AoS. So you need to promote the usage of ranked troops over support troops, and maybe there can be more support troop options but they do not have to be equally represented.
    Ah. I see where you are going with this. Fair point. :thumbup:

    I would cheat and call this a "design" problem rather than a pricing problem :P
    It is up to the LAB teams to deliver books where the support units are not so prevalent, and don't combine into better 4500pt lists than those containing "Core units".
    As I say though, I am kinda cheating there, and essentially just defining terms to make my life easier.

    I do sympathise with what you are saying.
    The current pricing system could have increased granularity in order to promote relatively higher usage of "rank&file" compare to support units.
    (Indeed I have argued for using the existing (but unused) granularity in the system to price actual core rank&file better relative to special).

    However, my experience during the first 12-15 months of the public release of 2.0 leads me to believe that if this were done for support units as you suggest, then players would complain that their support units were badly priced, and they would point at the lower relative usage of these units as the "evidence" of this.

    This is why I think any over-prevalence of support units due to the number of entries within a book, is best seen as a design issue, and dealt with one-by-one in the LABs.
    List repository and links HERE
    Basic beginners tactics HERE
    Empire of Dannstahl HERE
  • DanT wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Good post! As to why I feel that the balance method promotes light troops is because there are more light troops then ranked troops, hence if you want them to be equally represented then you are pushing things towards light troops. Things do not have to be equally represented. Core units, as in the core of the army not the core section, need to be ranked troops as this is a rank and file game not AoS. So you need to promote the usage of ranked troops over support troops, and maybe there can be more support troop options but they do not have to be equally represented.
    Ah. I see where you are going with this. Fair point. :thumbup:
    I would cheat and call this a "design" problem rather than a pricing problem :P
    It is up to the LAB teams to deliver books where the support units are not so prevalent, and don't combine into better 4500pt lists than those containing "Core units".
    As I say though, I am kinda cheating there, and essentially just defining terms to make my life easier.

    I do sympathise with what you are saying.
    The current pricing system could have increased granularity in order to promote relatively higher usage of "rank&file" compare to support units.
    (Indeed I have argued for using the existing (but unused) granularity in the system to price actual core rank&file better relative to special).

    However, my experience during the first 12-15 months of the public release of 2.0 leads me to believe that if this were done for support units as you suggest, then players would complain that their support units were badly priced, and they would point at the lower relative usage of these units as the "evidence" of this.

    This is why I think any over-prevalence of support units due to the number of entries within a book, is best seen as a design issue, and dealt with one-by-one in the LABs.

    It's not really something we (the LAB teams) can fix, Dan. As you say, if we deliver a book where only the R&F units are any good, people will complain, point at low play rates, and demand we do something.

    Like, we could design a book where you don't really want to play the single model units. It's not that technically complicated; just don't make them particularly effective. Low stats, bad special rules, whatevs. Then policy would price them lower and lower until you did want to play them.


    And the LAB teams are not especially empowered or encouraged to increase the number of different R&F units in the books.


    Now, an important disclaimer: to the best of my knowledge, R&F units are counted twice. Units both large and small get counted; if policy is to count "big unit of X" and "small unit of X" as separate entries for purposes of nudgement, I believe that would effectively double their numbers and thus presence.

    But this is definitely something that the algorithm and input guidelines would need to account, and I am unsure if it does.

    I think it does, actually; the issue may be more that while entries were being manually priced for slim books, there was a bias towards single models, and it takes time to adjust the entire game to compensate.

    Background Team

  • DanT wrote:

    Bogi wrote:

    Good post! As to why I feel that the balance method promotes light troops is because there are more light troops then ranked troops, hence if you want them to be equally represented then you are pushing things towards light troops. Things do not have to be equally represented. Core units, as in the core of the army not the core section, need to be ranked troops as this is a rank and file game not AoS. So you need to promote the usage of ranked troops over support troops, and maybe there can be more support troop options but they do not have to be equally represented.
    Ah. I see where you are going with this. Fair point. :thumbup:
    I would cheat and call this a "design" problem rather than a pricing problem :P
    It is up to the LAB teams to deliver books where the support units are not so prevalent, and don't combine into better 4500pt lists than those containing "Core units".
    As I say though, I am kinda cheating there, and essentially just defining terms to make my life easier.

    I do sympathise with what you are saying.
    The current pricing system could have increased granularity in order to promote relatively higher usage of "rank&file" compare to support units.
    (Indeed I have argued for using the existing (but unused) granularity in the system to price actual core rank&file better relative to special).

    However, my experience during the first 12-15 months of the public release of 2.0 leads me to believe that if this were done for support units as you suggest, then players would complain that their support units were badly priced, and they would point at the lower relative usage of these units as the "evidence" of this.

    This is why I think any over-prevalence of support units due to the number of entries within a book, is best seen as a design issue, and dealt with one-by-one in the LABs.
    Yes people always complain, one of those is me! Lols. As I said before people do forget to include mobility in their mathhammer. It's like someone above comparing kestrels to chaos knights. Chaos knights seem much better on pa part but I feel kestrels are light troops and have vanguard, they have advantages here and they should be dear.