OK this is partially a vent and partially constructive.
I honestly don’t understand how a person can say you can’t compare two or more units. Unless you are constructing your list via a series of completely random events you are comparing units. By simply looking at something and saying it is too expensive or that looks good you are in some way comparing it to a benchmark you have ingrained wether you know it or not.
These same people are normally those who say you can’t compare apples and oranges, well I hate to tell you, you can. You can compare which ones are tastier by trying them and making a choice, you can compare their appearance by looking at them, you can compare which ones are more valuable by finding out how much they cost and you can compare popularity by looking at sales data. All you need is a common reference point.
Whether people want to admit it or not they make a judgement on comparative value when determining which units they are putting in their list they are making a choice of how to maximise the value they can get our of a finite resource (points). The trick comes in where it is what people “value”. Some value the appearance of units, some just want a dragon, some want flexibly, some want it to perform a specific function that improves the rest of the army.
So how do you make that comparison?
Mathhammer it?
It is one way, very clumsy but a good “reality check” to see if you are on the right track.
You can do it across a range of situations i.e. both on and receiving the charge (after being shot at for two or three turns for your crack elites) versus 20 swordsmen, 6 light cavalry, 4 minotaurs with great weapons and 6 heavy cav. Or you can do it against a “benchmark” unit of that type. For example I compared my dark elf RXBs to wood elf archers and my spearmen to swordsmen to get an idea of where they stood against basic benchmark troops for their roles.
Special rules?
A very imperfect way but you should be assigning value you believe each special rule contributes to that units role in your general strategy. How valuable is frenzy on your troops versus elite warrior status? How important is it for me that this unit is survivable? What does hatred get me on my RXB?
Cheapest troop for the role?
If you want diverters then your starting benchmark would be the lowest cost fast paced unit? You want a CR fillers to hold impact units at bay then your cheapest infantry. From there you look at what roles secondary roles other more expensive units can fill and assign value to them. Normally you’d only do this for “support units” as the “main” units in your army should define the rest of the armies role.
Anecdotal evidence?
Both the best and worst way. People have a tendency to only pay attention to the anecdotal evidence that supports their preconceived ideas.
However given that the game is played on the table top and not on a paper you need to get a feel for how your troops work in unison by playing them or using prior experiences against them, or prior experience with similar troops.
If you are using this in the early going I recommend actually thinking about the game afterwards and just look at what each unit do. Did it perform better or worse than expectations, did you get lucky/unlucky? Unfortunately this requires a level of honesty many aren’t capable of.
This is no way intended to be a good guide as to how to perform such
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
It depends what you are trying to gain by comparing units.
The 'value' of a unit can be subjective across so many categories, such as how much a person likes the way a certain mini looks, or how a person is predisposed to certain unit types, like large monsters. For these categories comparing is a matter of personal taste and there aren't really any wrong answers.
However, when comparing units in game-related terms, where I presume a unit is being judged on how efficiently it performs a given role(s) in comparison to other units who would have similar functions, I feel as if finding an absolute answer to a comparison is unlikely given the vague nature of the WFB rules.
It's not that you cannot compare units; it's more that the almost endless possibilities and configurations available under the game rules make quantifying the true cost of a unit difficult in the extreme. Coming to a conclusion is necessary to play the game competitively, but I don't think the rules of the game allow you total confidence in your decision, as, for example, a move in chess might be judged to be 100% correct.
Comparing units in terms of efficiency is something all tournament players must do if they are serious about winning. However, I don't think a straight unit to unit comparison can give a definitive answer without a more holistic view.
In the example of X Saurus Warriors vs Y Empire Swordsmen of the same value, you can determine who would win a combat without extraneous circumstances, but I think the extraneous circumstances need to be factored in. Things such as cold-blooded, resilience to missile fire, likelihood of attracting missile fire; the list becomes more hazy.
I don't think that the comparisons are impossible to resolve, but any resolution will rest on an accumulation of probabilities and assumptions that must be kept in the open for re-examination.
Hmm I thought I covered the vast majority of your points: value could be a range of things, you can’t just do a one unit comparison you need to cover a range, you need to account for the role it will play, you need to take into account and value special rules/resilience and you need to use play testing.
It is interesting the 100% comment. Think of the trillions of dollars spent every year on providing analysis which you know doesn’t allow you to make a decision which is 100% correct. From doctors, to managers, to finical analysts, to governments, to media outlets, to advertisers, to farmers, to sportspeople, to drivers (I think I’ll stop there before I list that vast majority of occupations).
Take for example picking a stock. There is not a single analyst on earth that can with certainty tell you what something is truly worth because it is based on a litany of variables and yet people pay a significant amount of money to have access to their forecasts and valuations. Why? Because it gives them more information than they currently have and increases their chances of making the correct choice.
Being aware of why you are making a decision and being more systematic in the approach of evaluating the options only serves to improve the amount and quality of information you have to make the decision not provide you with a fail safe blue print for the 100% most effective outcome.
If you can never be 100% sure (of anything?) then I suppose the best way to look at whether analysis is valuable or not is who close it comes to 100% when compared to other methods.
To enjoy Warhammer, I can't evaluate units from the perspective of the efficiency of their points values. This is much more to do with my overall inability to accept the costing system as coherent than any active dislike of that mode of comparison to begin with.
I feel that Warhammer, at least in its current format, has to be attractive for reasons other than the application of its rules set. It could be me, but I don't think there are sufficient rewards to be gained from making complicated comparisons between units, because the whole system lacks enough stability to justify the effort.
There are other games or problems that will get you much closer to that 100%. I'd love to see a tighter rules set for Warhammer, though I don't believe it is likely to come from GW.
Hmm you read the blog post right, past the math hammer it paragraph header? I just need to check because both of your comment to me suggests you have read only one single paragraph and ignored the rest.
I actually put forward four possible methods and make pretty strong inferences that there are an abundance of methods to use. So which method are you referring to with the 100%, as per your first comment I struggle to put your feedback into context against the post given that many of your points are addressed, on a strange tangent or seem to be arguing against something which I have already caveated or dismissed?
Secondly, Ulyzed you seem to acknowledge the costing system is relatively arbitrary and use this as reason for not believing analysis or comparisons are effective or suitable? [Although you use terms in the vein of incoherent and unstable to convey this, I would argue that the points system is exceptionally coherent and stable just not accurate.]
The more accurate the costing system then the more closely the points cost would reflect the value of the unit and the more marginal any value from analysis would be. So if the system was the opposite of how you describe it (and more like the ones you suggest would benefit form this analysis) there would be little point in analysising units and no benefit to list design.
Therefore your description of the costing system actually supports more analysis before selecting a troop. As the more certain we are that point’s costs are not always true and accurate and that the role a unit plays in your army influences its value (i.e. synergies) the more benefit you get from trying to assess that value.
I find it strange that you can’t enjoy warhammer after analysing the units. If you said you don’t enjoy the actual analysis part then fine, but to suggest that conducting any analysis would then subsequently destroy the enjoyment of the game is down right absurd. If you found one of you opponents had dared think about his list composition would you then not enjoy the game?
And yes there are many things which may influence why someone plays WHFB, I can’t see my comment that disputes that, but just as effectiveness isn’t the chief concern for some players it is for others. I’d suggest neither of which is wrong just different and clearly if you don’t care about your units effectiveness the above blog post has zero relevance to you?
The distinction I want to make may have more to do with personal preference than anything else.
I really enjoy comparing units when organising a list. However, when thinking of WFB as a game, the flaws in the costing system don't give me any confidence in the fairness of WFB as a contest. That is not the say that there isn't appreciable skill between successful players and others, more that I don't think that skill can be relied upon to override the bias in the costing system. Composition scoring is a direct recognition that the basic rules set does not promote a sufficient (or even generally enjoyable) contest.
I can't enjoy tournament Warhammer because I can't get past the idea that no matter how much analysis I do, I am highly unlikely to cover the natural advantages given to ITP or very large and mobile monsters for example. This is not to say that other people can't; clearly the thriving tournament scene says otherwise. However, I do believe that to enjoy the analysis, you have to acknowledge that the system is imperfect to begin with, and that your starting point for analysis will likely come from a point of disadvantage.
It is the distinction between choosing not to play Ogres because you believe them to not be competitive, or deciding to play the best Ogre build you can make
because other factors compensate you when assembling your list.
I like painting and assembling lists for WFB, but I don't like want to play tournaments because I can't reconcile my want to win with the idea that the game offers enough fairness to justify winning yields on effective analysis.
It's not that comparing units is futile, I simply don't think for the time spent and faith made that the game gives enough back. I can't agree that there is an objective enough barometer for success derived from this rules set, but I think that might be just me. The thousands of tournament players obviously think differently.
Post a Comment