This is an attempt to measure the internal and external balance of all of the army books. I’ll be posting the same thing on all 16 army specific forums to get expert feedback for each of the races. The idea is just to rate each army book entry according to the scale below.
5 – This choice is extremely powerful / under-costed
4 – A very competitive choice, good value for the points.
3 – An OK choice, not optimal but still decent
2 – This unit is below par, either underpowered or overcosted
1 – Complete rubbish, very difficult to find any use for it
To help keep this as consistent as possible I would therefore ask people to always consider this guide when rating things. Please base the scores on the whole meta rather than just your army book, so don’t try to give out an equal number of 1’s as 5’s for example. If you think your book is one of the more powerful ones then I would expect there to be far more high scores than low ones, obviously the opposite applies to the weaker books.
A few things to have in mind:
• The assumption is that we are comparing in an uncomped environment.
• When rating characters always assume you are making the most optimal build possible (in your opinion) so assume the Vampire Lord is kitted out with Red Fury, Quickblood, Ogre Blade etc etc if that is what you think is the most optimal build, character mounts are rated separately though.
• Similarly with units assume that they are using the most optimal kit (most optimal can of course mean no upgrades).
• For wizards take into account the power of the spells that they have access to when scoring them.
• Lastly each unit / character should be rated in isolation, not in comparison to what it competes against in the book. So for example if there is a rare unit that is not commonly taken because other rare units are better and so take up the 25% allowance (maybe the gnoblar scraplauncher as an example) this does not mean that the scraplauncher is no good, just that it normally loses out to the ironblaster but it shouldn’t be penalised because of what it is competing against.
In order to ensure that your scores are counted please reply to this original post and do not change any of the spellings of unit names, even if they are wrong. If I have missed any unit types out completely let me know and I will amend the original post. Please only use this thread to put up your scores, I don’t want it to expand into a discussion thread.
Due to the fact that I am collecting data from 16 different forums and I honestly have no clue as to how many people will reply I don’t know how long it will take me to analyse the data, I’m hoping less than a week. I will not share what method I intend to use to measure internal / external balance at the moment as I don’t want to skew any results, but I will be happy to share the calculations and all of the data after I have finished.
I will be posting all of the results for this army book on this forum. The more general conclusions I will post on the Warhammer forum.
5 – This choice is extremely powerful / under-costed
4 – A very competitive choice, good value for the points.
3 – An OK choice, not optimal but still decent
2 – This unit is below par, either underpowered or overcosted
1 – Complete rubbish, very difficult to find any use for it
To help keep this as consistent as possible I would therefore ask people to always consider this guide when rating things. Please base the scores on the whole meta rather than just your army book, so don’t try to give out an equal number of 1’s as 5’s for example. If you think your book is one of the more powerful ones then I would expect there to be far more high scores than low ones, obviously the opposite applies to the weaker books.
A few things to have in mind:
• The assumption is that we are comparing in an uncomped environment.
• When rating characters always assume you are making the most optimal build possible (in your opinion) so assume the Vampire Lord is kitted out with Red Fury, Quickblood, Ogre Blade etc etc if that is what you think is the most optimal build, character mounts are rated separately though.
• Similarly with units assume that they are using the most optimal kit (most optimal can of course mean no upgrades).
• For wizards take into account the power of the spells that they have access to when scoring them.
• Lastly each unit / character should be rated in isolation, not in comparison to what it competes against in the book. So for example if there is a rare unit that is not commonly taken because other rare units are better and so take up the 25% allowance (maybe the gnoblar scraplauncher as an example) this does not mean that the scraplauncher is no good, just that it normally loses out to the ironblaster but it shouldn’t be penalised because of what it is competing against.
In order to ensure that your scores are counted please reply to this original post and do not change any of the spellings of unit names, even if they are wrong. If I have missed any unit types out completely let me know and I will amend the original post. Please only use this thread to put up your scores, I don’t want it to expand into a discussion thread.
Due to the fact that I am collecting data from 16 different forums and I honestly have no clue as to how many people will reply I don’t know how long it will take me to analyse the data, I’m hoping less than a week. I will not share what method I intend to use to measure internal / external balance at the moment as I don’t want to skew any results, but I will be happy to share the calculations and all of the data after I have finished.
I will be posting all of the results for this army book on this forum. The more general conclusions I will post on the Warhammer forum.
