Are Haradrim underpriced?

General Elessar · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:06 pm

I've been thinking recently that perhaps Harad Warriors are underpriced. If you compare them to anything else they're cheaper than they should be. For example, a Harad Warrior's stats are identical to an Orc's, except the Harad Warrior has one high Courage. However, both cost exactly the same. Surely the Harad Warrior should be a point more? Another example is Warriors of Rohan; they share the exact same stat as a Harad Warrior, but the Warrior of Rohan costs a point more. Again, it seems the Harad Warrior is too cheap.

Am I missing something here? Or am I right? If indeed Haradrim are cheaper than they should be, it would explain why there's so many in GT armies.

hero of gondor · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:11 pm

I think they did that because warriors of rohan and orcs can take shields so they have more options so should be more points.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:19 pm

In SBG they are underpriced IMO (the opposite is true for WOTR), I agree with you, compare them also to Dunledings, and Haradrim should actually be at least one point more if not 2 points because they have better archers thanks to the poison.

WayUnderTheMountain · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:33 pm

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

In SBG they are underpriced IMO (the opposite is true for WOTR), I agree with you, compare them also to Dunledings, and Haradrim should actually be at least one point more if not 2 points because they have better archers thanks to the poison.

Indeed. If you look at a Warrior of Rohan with a bow and a Haradrim Warrior with a bow, the Haradrim Warrior is more deadly (small margin but still better) yet I pay a full point more for the Rohan archer! Maybe the key is not increasing the base cost so much as at least increasing the price of the bow or decreasing the point costs of roughly equivalent archers.

BlackMist · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:49 pm

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

compare them also to Dunledings, and Haradrim should actually be at least one point more if not 2 points because they have better archers thanks to the poison.

And then you'd compare them to Warriors of MT with shields and you'd cry that WoMT are underpriced, move them up to 10 and cry that Uruks are underpriced...

The only thing that might be overpriced is a Warrior of Rohan, but then even that's arguable because of ability to have shields and throwing spears, as well as woses and grey company allies... then one could wonder how the hell did a rohan infantry / woses alliance get a 2nd place at the 2010 GT.

An argument of having a Haradrim 1 point more than an Orc because of 1 point of courage difference is wrong. You can't assign points evenly to every statistic because essentially Courage is the least useful statistic in the game in terms of warriors - correct choice of heroes completely offsets Courage disadvantages.

And saying that there are so many Haradrim in GT armies is a bit off too. Yes, they did win the 2011 GT. They were also 5th at the 2011 GT - and that's about it in top 10. In 2009 the highest Harad got was 4th. In 2010 the highest it got was also 4th. Then again people think that Isengard is great, while in fact this year there wasn't even a single Isengard force in the top 10.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 4:03 pm

BlackMist wrote:

The only thing that might be overpriced is a Warrior of Rohan.

I mean Dubledings not Wild MEn, the ones whose proile is completely identical to Rohan warriors

FireKnife · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:31 pm

The archers Poisened Arrow rule should not make a bow cost more as it states that you must re-roll any 1 to wound so if you hit a friendly through volley fire or shooting into comabt then you must re-roll the wound if you get a 1. That to me makes sense as i doubt an Orc is any more resilient than a Man to the Harad poisons.

'FireKnife'

hithero · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 5:39 pm

In theory Harad are undercosted. The fact is, is that before the Big Blue Book they only had daggers as standard which then counted the same as being unarmed today. This isn't a problem with the spearmen as you buy them a spear, but generally you either bought the archers a spear or left them unarmed. Since Harad can now take shielded allies, saying that they are priced ok due to that doesn't really wash. So, in short, make the archers unarmed again to bring back the balance.

FireKnife · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:52 pm

Personally while yes they are only 5pts (6 with kit) if they were made 6pts (7 with kit) then i don't think an issue would be made really. The difference between a WoR and a WoMT is 1pt and they have only 1 Defence higher but the difference between a WoR and a WoH is none but they have a whole point difference, doesn't make too much sense now that they both have hand weapons.

'FireKnife'

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Wed Oct 12, 2011 7:56 pm

One point does makle a difference because you have lots of them and it could end up meaning 2 or 3 extra men.

SuicidalMarsbar · **Joined:** Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:14 am **Posts:** 1712

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

One point does makle a difference because you have lots of them and it could end up meaning 2 or 3 extra men.

Especially when your trying to make a rohan horde army but find yourself only fielding un-equipped troops+archers because otherwise you have too few numbers...

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:32 am

hithero wrote:

So, in short, make the archers unarmed again to bring back the balance.

Exactly, that would fix most every thing. Compared to dunlendings, they are the same price, and yet have better defence. Compared to Rohirrim, they have the same stats, yet cost one point less. It makes sense that you would have more Haradrim than Rohirrim, but the Rohirrim would be superior fighters due to their motivation to defend their homelands and such.

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:35 am

GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:

One point does makle a difference because you have lots of them and it could end up meaning 2 or 3 extra men.

Especially with the elites. The watchers of karna have 2 attacks, yet only cost 9 points.

General Elessar · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:57 am

Glad to see how popular my thread is.

GothmogtheWerewolf · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:26 pm

Draugluin wrote:

hithero wrote:

So, in short, make the archers unarmed again to bring back the balance.

Exactly, that would fix most every thing. Compared to dunlendings, they are the same price, and yet have better defence. Compared to Rohirrim, they have the same stats, yet cost one point less. It makes sense that you would have more Haradrim than Rohirrim, but the Rohirrim would be superior fighters due to their motivation to defend their homelands and such.

You mean Wild Men not Dunledings, they are too different troops, Wild Men cost the same but with lower defence whilst Dunledings have the same defence but cost more.

Also, I agree about the Watchers

Draugluin · **Posted:** Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:59 pm

Yes yes, the Wild Men of Dunlend instead of the Dunlendings.

Abminiatures · **Joined:** Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:25 pm **Posts:** 60

And that's why I have Haradrim, Stat wise, they have the same as a lot of things, but in my mind, lets say we play a 500pt army, in my personal opinion, and let's say no mumakil is included, forces like orcs, gondor ect have war machines ect so if you look at a harad 500 pt army, and a Gondor (for example) 500 pt army, for chances of winning, you'd be more enclined to go with Gondor due to the larger range for your force.

Although Hasharin and posion Arrows are a god saint in Harad forces! and come a little to no cost!

Are Haradrim underpriced?

Who is online