I've been thinking about how Games Workshop give each model points values. I know a lot of experienced players can just 'feel' if a unit is over-powered or over-priced but I wondered if Games Workshop have an algorithm or calculation of some kind to work out how much a unit should cost. I think if they did we'd see a lot fewer units which are over or under-powered.

I'm not asking to know what this algorithm is, if there is one, I can figure that out myself but why bother if there isn't!?

I think it would make a lot of sense in terms of keeping things balanced. Only problem I can see is how do you quantify, in terms of points, values such as Might and Fate and even more difficult, special rules and magic.

I think there is. Essentially it's 5 points for a basic Human profile without any gear. I've found that the statlines largely add up well enough, it's the special rules and other things that are tricky to figure.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

I think when they released Battle Companies (issue 311 of WD, if I remember rightly), it provided a formula for making a Warrior into a Hero points-wise, roughly 5 pts per change to the statline I think.

_________________
See my WIP thread here. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=25624

I don't think there is an algorithm, so much as guidelines. First guideline is as Lord Hurin said, the 5 point base. Generally each attribute costs a certain number of points, but some of it is contextual, ie based on the range of the model's wargear options or even the list to which it belongs.

There was definitely a system they used in the beginning (much as there was with WHFB) where you could calculate the points value of a model.
However, in recent years they have strayed far afield... preferring stat creep for newer models to promote sales over game balance.
This isn't as big a problem in SBG as it is in WHFB or (shudder) 40K, where the systems are almost hopelessly broken.

I did a little work into this myself about a year ago. I took the entire Free People's source-book and calculated base costs for each faction's troops and heroes and their "point per stat" to help determine who gives you the most "bang for your buck" in each list.

_________________
Commission Painting @FB http://www.facebook.com/squyrepainting
Commission Customers include:
GBHL Youtube Channel
MiniWargaming

Someone referenced the Battle Companies system which is as follows:

Base profile cost, then you add
+5 points for added points of Fight, Strength, Defense, Courage, Might, Will & Fate.
+10 points for added Attacks, Wounds and Special Rules

If you are talking about Warriors, you are more in the 1/2 point per change range.

Like whafrog said, some of the points values are a little contextual though depending on wargear, army list, race etc.

_________________
Respectfully,
Jonathan

Do what is right, love mercy, and walk humbly

Battle Companies

Yeah pretty much. It seems to me there is that base and then like 1 pt for each extra and then special rules. As for heros, things cost 5 each instead.

Then some random stuff thrown in like random 100% archers rule for Mirkwood rangers and whatever.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

This really interests me because in my opinion any player ought to be able to spend their points and have a totally equal statistical probability of winning. By this I mean that no matter what troops a player takes, disregarding dice rolls which account for the inevitable role chance and luck play in an battle (real or miniature), both or all players have no inherent advantage statistically. This would mean that a player would only ever win because of his/her tactical decision making, army planning to facilitate these decisions and a small amount of favourable chance or luck.

I don't have much gaming experience but is this the case or are there army lists that mean you can still win but the odds are stacked against you right from the start?

Of course odds can be stacked against you from the start. Its the nature of war or SBGaming. If I come with an army of some heros and 30 mirkwood rangers and all my placement rolls put me as far away from an enemy as possible, who happens to be fielding all orcs, hes gonna lose a lot of men by the time he gets to me, and maybe lose drastically. If someone with an all hobbit army fights against isengard he constantly needs huge rolls to wound. Its simple.

Everyone does have an equal chance of winning from the start. You have the same pts as your opponent and if you fail to use them properly, thats on the person. If you come to a battle not knowing how you spent your points then nobody is to blame but yourself. Dont take 2 wizards if youve never used magic etc. Its all fair. Yes, some units are better for the points like corsair reavers compared to regular corsairs. If someone doesnt feel its fair then they need to leave sbgs and tabletops period because battle/war is not fair. Never once in history have two armies had the exact same opportunity, I can almost guarantee.

_________________
BLACKHAWK 2010 2013 2015 DYNASTY

Well, the game is remarkably balanced, but I don't think it's because of an algorithm, it's because of playtesting. You could have an Uruk-hai with HA + shield, which costs the same as a wood elf with spear + bow. The WE could kill the Uruk-hai long before combat begins. Or a WE with spear + throwing dagger...now the elf has more mobility, but fewer shots, and once caught is more likely to die. So 1:1 there is no way to account for equal odds. But pile those 1:1 into an army, and it all seems to work.

I hate to flog a word, but *context* is everything. Gondor couldn't win against Uruk hai if it weren't for cheap heroes like Beregond that let you bring more troops or add some Fountain Guard. Rohan doesn't do very well without doing a lot of kiting, but if Rohan's opponent brought no bows it will be a long slow boring game with an inevitable end. Elves would probably win only rarely if it weren't for Courage, but the scenario and the dice rolls for ending a game will change how effective that Courage is...the longer Courage is in play, the better elves will do. These permutations are kind of endless, and you couldn't devise an algorithm for it. All you can do is start with the basic guidelines and tweak from there through playtesting.

And despite all that playtesting, some armies will naturally do better in some scenarios, there is simply no way around it. There isn't in real life either. An all-hero list can't be expected to do that well at Domination, but will probably do great at Lords of Battle. If you pick the wrong army for the scenario, you're kind of hosed. That's why we generally pick a balanced force, and then roll the scenario.

EDIT: forgot a huge one: terrain. People don't use enough, IMHO, but if you do it completely changes things up. Some armies will do better in certain terrain, outnumbered armies can use it to limit access or create choke points. And despite everyone's best intentions, the terrain on one side might not be as balanced as on the other...one side might get more cover, more woodlands, etc. No algorithm can account for that.



I'd give Uruk-hai and Dwarves that honour. It doesn't take very long as their opponent before a run of bad luck turns into a landslide of calamity. Because in the end it's all about wounding. Generally 6s are needed to kill them, whereas they generally, depending on opponents, need 5+ to wound.

A case could also be made for armies led by major combat heroes. I've had quite a few games where the Twins (fighting like mad) and a handful of warriors (shielding like mad) held out long enough for Courage to kick in and the opposition melt away.

Mostly its just the base profile calculation + gear to see if things are balanced. I would say that everything is close enough at that stage ( I can't think of something that isn't), but when you add special rules you see the imbalances a bit clearer, particularly when a special rule works strongly in that factions favour. I'd say the most valuable stats to have are strength and defence, which is why the Uruks and Dwarves are quite popular - harder to kill but have the benefit of killing easier themselves. But it also depends on points size and the options you have in terms of heroes, monsters and wargear, so its not always just one thing which makes something "better".

As far as the opposite way goes I would say that Numenor and Khand are the most hard done by lists. Khand doesn't get much in the way of options in exchange for their low durability - they do get to ally with armies with good options (mordor mostly), but then that can be quite hard to work in with warbands.

Numenor has good fight value but again average/low defence. I just did a play test with them vs moria and they got rolled for the most part. They don't really have any means to take out monsters and deal with numbers as a pure list. They did roll pretty poorly so I will re-test it sometime. The extra fight value doesn't really cut it when you are being outnumbered almost 2-1.

Come to think of it - Kings of Men & Dwarves are the most underpowered - nobody uses them that I know of

_________________
My trade thread
http://www.one-ring.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=25957&p=325932#p325932

Kings of Men used to be nice in Legions days. But the warband rules have made taking some heroes obsolete.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

As others said there certainly is/was some mathematical thought behind it: 5 points for a man's base profile +1 point per 'pip' of stat increase. Let's look at a Feral Uruk Hai:

+1 Fight
+1 Strength
+2 Defence
+1 attacks
+2 Courage

5 + 7 = 12 - Boom. Success.

You would then expect to pay the normal points upgrade for any wargear they have (+1 for spear, +2 for Throwing weapons, +6 for horse etc.)

Heroes work slightly differently, paying 5 points for every stat increase, 5 points for every Might/Will/Fate and slightly more for wargear (+5 for shield, +5 for Throwing Weapons+10 for horse etc.).

It really is surprising and impressive how often this basic principle does work out. Of course, it doesn't always work, there are plenty of units where it falls apart quite spectacularly (Watchers of Karna and Abrakan Guard for example) but I think the vast majority of units in the game are either 'right' or close enough that it doesn't really unbalance things.

The first issue with the system is that each stat isn't in fact worth the same, an extra attack is worth more than an extra point of anything else as it makes the warrior twice as likely to win each and every fight throughout the game and potentially able to kill double the amount of models. Attacks should 'cost' more but how much? +2 points? +3 points? The system in place is quite transparent but not flawless.

Special rules are the hardest issue, again there's a standard that heroes pay +5 for a special rule and warriors pay +1. Again, this gives a nice, clear maths based starting point to work from and it normally yields rests in the right ballpark. However, the biggest issue here is that special rules are not all worth the same within the game. Eomer pays 5 points for Expert Rider and Alfrid pays 5 points for Dubious Council when Alfrid's rule clearly has far more impact on most games than Eomer's. Similarly a Courage 3 Rohan Royal Guard paying 1 point for Bpdygaurd gains a huge advantage whereas a C5 Palace Guard (who are over-costed anyway) won;t see as much return on the bodyguard benefit so should pay less. A lot of this also depends on the length of the game. Aragorn's Mighty Hero rule is more effective the longer the game goes on. It's great for the first 10 turns or so when you're forcing the enemy to use their might to counter it but it's worth so much more in the last 10 turns when the enemy's out of Might and you can completely boss the table. How to you value that rule - at what it's worth for the first half or what it's worth for the second half?

All in all it's an incredibly hard thing to balance and I think the core mechanics of the SBG profiles are pretty sound. It would be lovely to see someone take the time to go over all the profiles and make sure all the stats match up to their points (at which point Watchers would practically double in price!) but there would still be a discrepancy in values because of the 'worth' of special rules which each and every player would disagree on.

_________________
Finished 2nd in the 2014 GBHL. My Wife's so proud

Free SBG fanzine: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=29569

Watchers were overpowered but had an element of balance when their cloaks didn't count as armour. Now that they do they are the Orgu Peynir/Cheddar/Gorgonzola of cheese.

On the special rules thing, I think that some rules (racial ones) are free. E.G. Woodland creature, poisioned arrows, etc.

_________________
"Release the Kragle!"
They were waiting 45 minutes to make that pun.
Totally worth it.

Yes I have that too.. however what has always bothered me with that system is it doesn't allocate points for increased shooting skill ... but that could be calculated as similar to fight I suppose.

I see the new Battle companies rules is hosted on this forum space now. Well done.

_________________
Ninth Ruling Steward of Gondor. Dior was born in 2328. He was the son of the Steward Barahir

Really they could never get the game perfectly balanced, even with algorithms. For example, adding 2 defense is more important than 1, but adding 4 defense is not that different from 5. Similar to how increasing Attacks from 2-3 is not as major as a change as 1-2, but then throw in a horse and things get out of control.

Additionally, because of how allying works, every new profile will upset the previous balance. It changes ratios, it changes how effective certain stats are, and we would be talking about point values with a handful of sig figs instead of whole numbers. The statistics would be nuts.

Long story short, the game will never be perfectly balanced, but its okay.

Tezzy, that doesn't mean there couldn't be an algorithm. It just means that it would be quite complicated! However, I agree that there's not a lot of point trying to balance a game to the point where points values need more than 3 sig figs, I'm not good enough at Maths.