Berserkers are a joke

TheVikingTW

This unit is so overpowered, I could hardly believe my eyes the other day when I was comparing stats.

If you compare it to wardancers (a similar unit) for example, it becomes very clear.

+ 50 less cost.
+ 10 more leadership.
+ 2550 more health
+ 16 (!) more weapon strength
+ 9 more charge
+ Frenzy
+ Berserk

- No physical resistance (but they get it anyway from Berserk)
- No woodsman or shadow's coil (who cares)
- 3 less bonus vs. infantry
- 9 less speed.
- 14 less MD

The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages.

I'm ok with them being better than wardancers, for the cost, since Norsca has a less varied roster, but this is too much.

They also work better in the Norscan roster (when do you ever see Wardancers?), because it's much easier to protect archers against Wood Elves, and very difficult against Norsca.

Against Norsca, who often rush you with full melee, have Seafang (another OP ability), and usually pendulum / burning head, and a lot of units with high mass that just punch through your lines, you would need to hold against their entire army with part of yours (since you invested into missile troops).

Even if you somehow dodged all the spells and abilities being thrown at your missile troops (which is also removing damage uptime from these units) you would have to shoot the berserkers enough to rout them (almost impossible with their high leadership, berserk and ITP) in the very small amount of time your front line is actually going to hold against the insane berserkers' charge.

There's also the synergy with Fimir sundering armour, so that even armoured units (which are super bad against Seafang / Pendulum / Mammoths and reduce the width of your army so you become easier to flank) can't stop them very well.

A unit like Witch Elves gets completely ripped apart by rat ogres, while Berserkers simply kill the rat ogres.

They could easily be 800 gold and people would still use them.

yst#1879

Ya what a joke of a unit, struggles vs a silverin spear, wouldve expect them to actually be useful

- 60 armor
- silver shield
- 20 anti large
- 30 magic resist

Unit like berserkers get ripped apart hard by treekin, silverin would take on like 2x treekin lol.

But of coz a 15 armor guy with 24 def needs absolute trash offence capability. I mean feel free tp nerf theur dmg and attack, give them 100 armor

The_real_FAUST#6885

They are a huge bargain

But then Norsca has some weird bargains

Fimir are another example of this

Odysseus95

Agreed. There have been several threads on Berserkers in the past. But yeah, Berserkers are incredibly overtuned if you compare them to their counterparts. They beat up all the lightly armoured monstrous infantry, which is kinda laughable honestly. I am fine with them doing lots of damage in return, but they shouldn't beat stuff like Rat Ogres or Crypt Horrors.

Then again, I also think Marauder Berserkers are one of the few damage dealer infantry that can actually be considered good/useful. The class has a lot of units that are mediocre or are simply never worth the investment. So the question is: Do we buff others to the level of Berserkers, so that they all become more relevant, or nerf Berserkers to mediocrity?

another505

I think wardancers are bad itself makes the comparison look really favourable to berserkers. You rarely or never see wardancers regardless

Berserkers are fine. Ya it synergize well with fimir which is good. But cost almost 2k gold. Hardly broken.

Norsca rely itself to be a rush faction. It has less tools than bm and chaos.

No cav, no mid-high tier AL inf, no artillery, even less lords than bm!
its better at clearing chaffs but not armored inf. And I always find that marauder champion gw and marauder gw awkward. I want an ap inf price between them, norsca is not that good at dealing with a lot of armored inf.

Even if you price it 800. It will be taken because norsca strengths are rather confined.

yst#1879

Fimirs r not at all impressive. Paper good only, were great before, till the nerf makes them quite undesirable.
They r a $1300 unit with the offence power LESS than a $800 troll, so $500 of perks and of coz that 30 ld depending how much u wanna put a price tag on that. Also -9 speed slower than trolls which is pretty significant, trolls r 20% faster.

FImir combos r all talks. 1 fimir 1 zerk is over $2000, ure talking about shaggoth grade.

another505

Yaa fimir is decent but their ws for their price is really bad.
You really take it for magic dmg, armor sundering more than its raw strength besides against bretonnia.
It has high armor and some missile resist but counter back with low ld.

Sarmatianns#6760

another505 said:

I think wardancers are bad itself makes the comparison look really favourable to berserkers. You rarely or never see wardancers regardless

Berserkers are fine. Ya it synergize well with fimir which is good. But cost almost 2k gold. Hardly broken.

Norsca rely itself to be a rush faction. It has less tools than bm and chaos.

No cav, no mid-high tier AL inf, no artillery, even less lords than bm!
its better at clearing chaffs but not armored inf. And I always find that marauder champion gw and marauder gw awkward. I want an ap inf price between them, norsca is not that good at dealing with a lot of armored inf.

Even if you price it 800. It will be taken because norsca strengths are rather confined.

I don't think Wardancers are bad as such. They're just too high a risk often. Reducing their price means they're more easily throwable. They don't perform better, it's just less of a loss if they take damage.

Now, let's say a scenario of Norsca vs WE battle - you have Berserkers included on one side, and Wardancers on the other. Wardancers have the benefit of speed to help them but that requires micro/input from player, while Berserkers benefits are always on (higher HP, higher WS and higher mass) making them more resilient (and more dangerous) to literally every threat on the battlefield, including cavalry, chariots, monstrous infantry, SEM, other infantry and missiles.

And let's say WE player micros his Wardancers well that they reach Bersekers unscathed for the most part - they will still lose convincingly to a cheaper unit, which doesn't require nearly as much attention and performs better vs anything else you throw at it. Due to high CB and Berserk mechanic, they will do better than Wardancers in 99% of scenarios both on charge and in a grind.

I do not really wish for my Wardancers to be cheaper, but, if I devote attention to them, avoid all the possible dangers and get them to reach their ideal target (low armour infantry), I want them to perform very, very well, not lose to a cheaper unit.

I think +50 gold on Berserkers is a very reasonable solution, although I admit I'd much rather CA nerfs mammoths than infantry.

IMaybo

yst said:

Ya what a joke of a unit, struggles vs a silverin spear, wouldve expect them to actually be useful

- 60 armor
- silver shield
- 20 anti large
- 30 magic resist

Unit like berserkers get ripped apart hard by treekin, silverin would take on like 2x treekin lol.

But of coz a 15 armor guy with 24 def needs absolute trash offence capability. I mean feel free tp nerf theur dmg and attack, give them 100 armor

genius

lets compare new OP stuff to old OP and make some conclusions

old OP unit loses to new OP unit, wow who would have thought

maybe you do one of your famous tests and show us all the level of "rippness" they perform on treekin?

another505

Sarmatians said:

another505 said:

I think wardancers are bad itself makes the comparison look really favourable to berserkers. You rarely or never see wardancers regardless

Berserkers are fine. Ya it synergize well with fimir which is good. But cost almost 2k gold. Hardly broken.

Norsca rely itself to be a rush faction. It has less tools than bm and chaos.

No cav, no mid-high tier AL inf, no artillery, even less lords than bm!
its better at clearing chaffs but not armored inf. And I always find that marauder champion gw and marauder gw awkward. I want an ap inf price between them, norsca is not that good at dealing with a lot of armored inf.

Even if you price it 800. It will be taken because norsca strengths are rather confined.

I don't think Wardancers are bad as such. They're just too high a risk often. Reducing their price means they're more easily throwable. They don't perform better, it's just less of a loss if they take damage.

Now, let's say a scenario of Norsca vs WE battle - you have Berserkers included on one side, and Wardancers on the other. Wardancers have the benefit of speed to help them but that requires micro/input from player, while Berserkers benefits are always on (higher HP, higher WS and higher mass) making them more resilient (and more dangerous) to literally every threat on the battlefield, including cavalry, chariots, monstrous infantry, SEM, other infantry and missiles.

And let's say WE player micros his Wardancers well that they reach Bersekers unscathed for the most part - they will still lose convincingly to a cheaper unit, which doesn't require nearly as much attention and performs better vs anything else you throw at it. Due to high CB and Berserk mechanic, they will do better than Wardancers in 99% of scenarios both on charge and in a grind.

I do not really wish for my Wardancers to be cheaper, but, if I devote attention to them, avoid all the possible dangers and get them to reach their ideal target (low armour infantry), I want them to perform very, very well, not lose to a cheaper unit.

I think +50 gold on Berserkers is a very reasonable solution, although I admit I'd much rather CA nerfs mammoths than infantry.

Ya, i rather they nerf feral mammoth instead

About WE and Norsca though. its completely two different faction design.In general:
Norsca basically has only 1 way to win and go head strong and breakthrough. with some skirmsih cavs and dogs to run around
WE has a few style and generally dictate the battlefield better than any other factions

yst#1879

Wardancers, dance. Major component of that unit, if ure not using that in any test, thats an epic inaccuracy that leads to very, very different outcome. Over 60+ def with it, near complete negation of berserkers charge.

Can they still lose, absolutely, then again no one dare to look at mara spear vs other spears now would they. Or glade guards vs peasant archers. Tomb guards with silvershield vs zerkers

Pretty weird really, so now should nosca suck hard in melee getting beaten by wood elf in hand to hand or what

eumaies#1128

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

yst#1879

Or is chaos so far behind ppl forgotten about them, and the infamous forsaken that got nerfed to the grounds being lost in history. Forsakens r 85 armor 46 speed “shock” infantry.

Zerkers r the weakest of all the inf of that range in survival. No inf that costs $750 has 15 armor 24 def. Feel free to give them +50 armor and +15 def then we can talk about offence reduction

NightOfTheDead#8509

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

Compare them to plague monks then. Stat wise they way over plague monks and cost the same. 2 of those definitely should NOT cost the same.

another505

NightOfTheDead said:

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

Compare them to plague monks then. Stat wise they way over plague monks and cost the same. 2 of those definitely should NOT cost the same.

And skaven got guns and artillery, and a faction that should have weaker infantry

like its hard to compare units across factions especially some factions got less playstyle than others.

eumaies#1128

NightOfTheDead said:

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

Compare them to plague monks then. Stat wise they way over plague monks and cost the same. 2 of those definitely should NOT cost the same.

Physical resist, larger bonus vs inf, and the skaven martial prowess (+8 MD +6LD). At least you can't summon berserkers

No for sure they're better than plague monks, definitely a standout unit for the faction that has so little ranged power. Still, I can put up with a lot on a unit that there are clear counters for. I don't doubt lots of matchups would benefit from not losing to norsca light inf, but I'm not sure how norsca would fare without that power play. i suppose you could try to equalize the power a little more between norsca heavy and light infantry, since the heavy infantry are very weak right now.

IMaybo

yst said:

Still dont have the depth to realise one has 20 anti large and the other is a designated anti inf. Really only balance failures cant comprehend such basics. Like how basic they want it to be, this is like green entry level basic

Best to join the list of fails, next thingthey gonna tell u is that berserkers r not infantry, but flying shock cav

even a squig would understand that instead of comparing berserkers to new OP units that need fixing, it would be better to compare them to already existing ones that went through longer balancing path and of similar role

next thing you know these guys will start to compare berserkers to Teclis on phoenix just to show that bersekrers are balanced

its good that CA made new DLC with overpowered HE units that are not fixed yet, so some elfophobic guys could use those not-yet-fixed units as an excuse to their favourite faction's good old OP stuff

eumaies#1128

KurnothHunter said:

yst said:

Still dont have the depth to realise one has 20 anti large and the other is a designated anti inf. Really only balance failures cant comprehend such basics. Like how basic they want it to be, this is like green entry level basic

Best to join the list of fails, next thingthey gonna tell u is that berserkers r not infantry, but flying shock cav

even a squig would understand that instead of comparing berserkers to new OP units that need fixing, it would be better to compare them to already existing ones that went through longer balancing path and of similar role

next thing you know these guys will start to compare berserkers to Teclis on phoenix just to show that bersekrers are balanced

its good that CA made new DLC with overpowered HE units that are not fixed yet, so some elfophobic guys could use those not-yet-fixed units as an excuse to their favourite faction's good old OP stuff

oh boy. I like this defending gentle nerfs on OP no-counters SG while ensuring norsca gets nerfed at least harder. Good balancing philosophy.

eumaies#1128

yst said:

Or is chaos so far behind ppl forgotten about them, and the infamous forsaken that got nerfed to the grounds being lost in history. Forsakens r 85 armor 46 speed “shock” infantry.

Zerkers r the weakest of all the inf of that range in survival. No inf that costs $750 has 15 armor 24 def. Feel free to give them +50 armor and +15 def then we can talk about offence reduction

it's a good point what a liability 24 MD is, which skaven overcome with their strength in numbers bonus. As anyone who's ever tried to use a giant slayer (30 MD) can attest, really low MD is a substantial and interesting vulnerability, even given their immense strength in other areas.

eumaies#1128

Green0 said:

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

I don't think you could be more wrong with any of that. They have massive HP, at 750g they are hardly "vulnerable to ranged" (else we can call Skavenslaves "vulnerable to ranged" also or any unit with low armor. But typical builds vs Norsca fail to kill more than 1 unit before melee ensues which favors the Norsca player. They are also relatively fast and do better than they should into armor and vs unarmored they are an absolute lawnmower.

In any other roster they would easily be 850g not sure why they didn't get nerfed yet.

eumaies said:

KurnothHunter said:

yst said:

Still dont have the depth to realise one has 20 anti large and the other is a designated anti inf. Really only balance failures cant comprehend such basics. Like how basic they want it to be, this is like green entry level basic

Best to join the list of fails, next thingthey gonna tell u is that berserkers r not infantry, but flying shock cav

even a squig would understand that instead of comparing berserkers to new OP units that need fixing, it would be better to compare them to already existing ones that went through longer balancing path and of similar role

next thing you know these guys will start to compare berserkers to Teclis on phoenix just to show that bersekrers are balanced

its good that CA made new DLC with overpowered HE units that are not fixed yet, so some elfophobic guys could use those not-yet-fixed units as an excuse to their favourite faction's good old OP stuff

oh boy. I like this defending gentle nerfs on OP no-counters SG while ensuring norsca gets nerfed at least harder. Good balancing philosophy.

Berserkers are most definitely far more OP than Silverins are and will ever be.

Well clearly they need to stay that way then if norsca is going to have any chance against SG.

IMaybo

eumaies said:

KurnothHunter said:

yst said:

Still dont have the depth to realise one has 20 anti large and the other is a designated anti inf. Really only balance failures cant comprehend such basics. Like how basic they want it to be, this is like green entry level basic

Best to join the list of fails, next thingthey gonna tell u is that berserkers r not infantry, but flying shock cav

even a squig would understand that instead of comparing berserkers to new OP units that need fixing, it would be better to compare them to already existing ones that went through longer balancing path and of similar role

next thing you know these guys will start to compare berserkers to Teclis on phoenix just to show that bersekrers are balanced

its good that CA made new DLC with overpowered HE units that are not fixed yet, so some elfophobic guys could use those not-yet-fixed units as an excuse to their favourite faction's good old OP stuff

oh boy. I like this defending gentle nerfs on OP no-counters SG while ensuring norsca gets nerfed at least harder. Good balancing philosophy.

ye, like you don't even know how I would prefer berserkers to be balanced, but you make conclusions already

when I proposed a maximum nerf of -4MA and -4MD and CDvA to CDvL for silverins, you said it was too much, or you will deny it?

thats why I said maybe it would be better to start with -2MA -1MD then

and yes, I still think silvering don't deserve ridiculous nerfs such as upping their cost to 900 and reducing their armor, thats a squig logic

sorry for off-topic

eumaies#1128

KurnothHunter said:

eumaies said:

KurnothHunter said:

yst said:

Still dont have the depth to realise one has 20 anti large and the other is a designated anti inf. Really only balance failures cant comprehend such basics. Like how basic they want it to be, this is like green entry level basic

Best to join the list of fails, next thingthey gonna tell u is that berserkers r not infantry, but flying shock cav

even a squig would understand that instead of comparing berserkers to new OP units that need fixing, it would be better to compare them to already existing ones that went through longer balancing path and of similar role

next thing you know these guys will start to compare berserkers to Teclis on phoenix just to show that bersekrers are balanced

its good that CA made new DLC with overpowered HE units that are not fixed yet, so some elfophobic guys could use those not-yet-fixed units as an excuse to their favourite faction's good old OP stuff

oh boy. I like this defending gentle nerfs on OP no-counters SG while ensuring norsca gets nerfed at least harder. Good balancing philosophy.

ye, like you don't even know how I would prefer berserkers to be balanced, but you make conclusions already

when I proposed a maximum nerf of -4MA and -4MD and CDvA to CDvL for silverins, you said it was too much, or you will deny it?

thats why I said maybe it would be better to start with -2MA -1MD then

and yes, I still think silvering don't deserve ridiculous nerfs such as upping their cost to 900 and reducing their armor, thats a squig logic

sorry for off-topic

Cool, well if Norsca is overperforming maybe berserkers could start with -2MA and give that to one of their heavy infantry types.

yst#1879

Green0 said:

Berserkers are most definitely far more OP than Silverins are and will ever be.

Sadly vs silverins these guys worth no more than 600, no silvershield, -20 anti large, -60 armor LOLLLLLLLLLLL -30% magic resist. $600 is too generous, prolly less really. They take about like 400% more dmg from gobbos archers than silverins lulzzzzzzz

No problem making zerkers like wardancers, just +100m range and move and shoot for javelins and +10 ammo, that would do.

Cirdan

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

I find the third paragraph quite strange. It's pretty obvious that direct comparisons between different rosters are always tough to make. This have, however, not stopped people from making a multitude of direct comparisons which are questionable in regards to asymmetric balancing and the roster differences, for example comparisons between dwarf units/characters against units from other rosters. Dwarfs must surely be such an oddball themselves.

On the subject matter, i do think wardancers are the best unit to compare with berserkers since their role is quite similar. Further, WE is a faction that should have good and efficient low armor infantry, exactly like Norsca. WE have, for example, no cheap light cav, no armoured infantry, arourmed cav, offensively oriented monstrous infantry, mammoths etc.

Cirdan

yst said:

Green0 said:

Berserkers are most definitely far more OP than Silverins are and will ever be.

Sadly vs silverins these guys worth no more than 600, no silvershield, -20 anti large, -60 armor LOLLLLLLLLLLL -30% magic resist. $600 is too generous, prolly less really. They take about like 400% more dmg from gobbos archers than silverins lulzzzzzzz

No problem making zerkers like wardancers, just +100m range and move and shoot for javelins and +10 ammo, that would do.

There are plenty of threads about silverin guard, kindly use them instead of derailing this thread.

yst#1879

Not really, thats describing skaven and not welf would fit that perfectly. They dont even have cav. Welf have glade riders, not only cheap but frikking good melee considering what the can already dish out with arrows u dont even need to put them in melee when not needed.

Plenty of faction fits that, ork is a very obvious one. Biguns have no problem dealing with zerkers while having anti large. Tombs aint armoured either, all cheap lightly armoured, tomb guards sitting at 50, wildwood is 40.




And why the heck is zerkers and dancers not tested?
Dancers also got a significant +4 def swap. At 38 def they r among the HIGHEST dual weild unit in game

eumaies#1128

Cirdan said:

eumaies said:

Berserkers have some very clearly defined weaknesses. You could as well argue witch elves are broken because they have an ability that can have a huge influence on the battlefield while also being quite strong anti-inf non-AP.

But berserkers are very vulnerable to ranged, take damage themselves from non-AP pretty fast, and are not too great vs armour.

Wardancers are simply a poor comparison point. On a roster with particularly oddball infantry and just about the weakest infantry in that class. Doesn't matter what you compare them with on paper they will look bad.

I find the third paragraph quite strange. It's pretty obvious that direct comparisons between different rosters are always tough to make. This have, however, not stopped people from making a multitude of direct comparisons which are questionable in regards to asymmetric balancing and the roster differences, for example comparisons between dwarf units/characters against units from other rosters. Dwarfs must surely be such an oddball themselves.

On the subject matter, i do think wardancers are the best unit to compare with berserkers since their role is quite similar. Further, WE is a faction that should have good and efficient low armor infantry, exactly like Norsca. WE have, for example, no cheap light cav, no armoured infantry, arourmed cav, offensively oriented monstrous infantry, mammoths etc.

My point is simply that based on prior analyses and conversations I think wardancers are a bit UP and should be buffed.

yst#1879

Nah definitely not buying this bullcrap at all, tested it multiple times

I dare any1 to test it live at 39 units

20 with dance 19 without. This whole nonsense about wardancers being weak is garbage. No problem trading with a 15 armor 24 def tofu with 48 attack, its like hot knife thru butter