Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Serious Warmahordes talk

Alright guys, serious question time and I want you guys to speak up.  The question of the day is:  Is Warmhordes really balanced?  A lot of people say different things, but most people can agree on the following:

  • There are some bad match-ups in the warcaster/warlock department.
  • There are some units more cost effective than others.
  • There are some warcasters/warlocks that can play scenarios better than others.
  • I'm sure there's more out there, but these hit home the quickest.

So this leads me to ask myself:  Is the game more balanced at 35 or at 50 points?  A lot of people say 50 points and with good reason.  More units allow you to take more answers right?  That seems to be the most common answer I get from people.

Is it true?  Of course it is.  It applies to any and every minis game that I've encountered.  More points gives you more options and more options leads to less hard counters.  In 40K, you can play Dark Eldar vs. a GK army fielding 6x Psyfleman.  Aside from bending over and asking kindly, the odds are going to be against you no matter what.  This is known as a bad match-up.  Not to be confused with any form of skill.. but the composition of his army vs. your army is going to suck, period.  The same could be said about Terminus vs. Caine, or Karchev vs. Rahn.

So back to the more options, more answers thing:  Does this principle really exist?  And, is this a sign of bad game balance or possibly even design?

Let's go over some quick points really quick:
  • Bad match-ups because of certain warcaster pairings requires more options.
  • To get more options, you increase the points from 35 to 50 points.
  • However, in doing so, the better and more cost effective units will make the transition easier (another unit of Bane Thralls + UA why not!)
  • These units are often the ones that are self-reliant and don't need many warcaster buffs.  The reason why this is so is because they are flexible and can be taken with virtually any warcaster.
  • Points increasing works like 2 people climbing a mountain: Just because you can take some answers doesn't mean your opponent can't as well.
  • So as both players take more options to make their lists even more well-rounded, you still reach the top of the ladder with the same old bad match-up.

I'm just thinking outloud here, but what exactly does 50 points do that 35 points can't do?  It alleviates bad match-ups, yes, but who's one to say it's more balanced than 35?  If you're running into a bad match-up, just play another list.  Isn't that why most tournaments and events have multiple lists to begin with?

So that brings us back to the original question, rephrased and spit out:  If bad match-ups occur due to game design, possible balance issues within the army books themselves, and via scenario play, then why even bother increasing the points from 35 to 50 if the result is the same?

Let the discussion begin!


Anonymous said...

Well for the fun factor of more troops.

pattison said...

42 points is the answer.

Post a Comment