Is 40k actually badly imblanced?

[Azekai]

I've been in and out of 40k for multiple editions across several decades, so I'm pretty confident in saying this: 40k and most other GW games are extremely unbalanced. Codex creep has always been a thing. Min-maxing broken or cost efficient units has always been a thing. New models being more powerful to push their sales isn't new either. 40k was always supposed to be a fun game to push sales, not a fair one: alot of hobbyists forget that.

 

But, this unbalance isn't new: 40k has always been unbalanced...

It has always been unbalanced, but it wasn't to the degree that the other guy takes an army that is basically nothing but new ork kits and can shoot you off the table T1. Or buys a bunch of the previously bad skitarii and now gets to shoot you off the table because the flagrantly out of whack rules say so.

 

The flash-in-the-pan pay to win format is bad in video games, and 40k is getting dumber because it is aping this model. I feel like this could be avoided by putting a year+ moratorium on using new rules in competitive play, so you don't just have the new hotness run roughshod over everything else. That would also put a brake on GW's perverse incentive of making rules that pressure you buy new models to get that sweet competitive edge.

 

[Tawnis]

 

I've been in and out of 40k for multiple editions across several decades, so I'm pretty confident in saying this: 40k and most other GW games are extremely unbalanced. Codex creep has always been a thing. Min-maxing broken or cost efficient units has always been a thing. New models being more powerful to push their sales isn't new either. 40k was always supposed to be a fun game to push sales, not a fair one: alot of hobbyists forget that.

 

But, this unbalance isn't new: 40k has always been unbalanced...

It has always been unbalanced, but it wasn't to the degree that the other guy takes an army that is basically nothing but new ork kits and can shoot you off the table T1. Or buys a bunch of the previously bad skitarii and now gets to shoot you off the table because the flagrantly out of whack rules say so.

 

The flash-in-the-pan pay to win format is bad in video games, and 40k is getting dumber because it is aping this model. I feel like this could be avoided by putting a year+ moratorium on using new rules in competitive play, so you don't just have the new hotness run roughshod over everything else. That would also put a brake on GW's perverse incentive of making rules that pressure you buy new models to get that sweet competitive edge.

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm talking about casual 40k here. Yeah, the tournament min/max scene is everything you said, but I'm refereeing to balance of you play the models you own against someone else playing the models they own. Not going out and buying a bunch of dakkajets and buggies to obliterate people because they're currently having their 15 minutes of fame. 

 

I'm not saying that can't be imbalanced, I was wondering if people's experience is more a select few that try to hunt for the cracks that can break an otherwise decently balanced systems, of if the balance curve is so bad, it's noticeable at every level of play. My experience so far has been the former, but I wanted to know what people who have played more than me though about it. 

[tychobi]

 

 

I've been in and out of 40k for multiple editions across several decades, so I'm pretty confident in saying this: 40k and most other GW games are extremely unbalanced. Codex creep has always been a thing. Min-maxing broken or cost efficient units has always been a thing. New models being more powerful to push their sales isn't new either. 40k was always supposed to be a fun game to push sales, not a fair one: alot of hobbyists forget that.

 

But, this unbalance isn't new: 40k has always been unbalanced...

It has always been unbalanced, but it wasn't to the degree that the other guy takes an army that is basically nothing but new ork kits and can shoot you off the table T1. Or buys a bunch of the previously bad skitarii and now gets to shoot you off the table because the flagrantly out of whack rules say so.

 

The flash-in-the-pan pay to win format is bad in video games, and 40k is getting dumber because it is aping this model. I feel like this could be avoided by putting a year+ moratorium on using new rules in competitive play, so you don't just have the new hotness run roughshod over everything else. That would also put a brake on GW's perverse incentive of making rules that pressure you buy new models to get that sweet competitive edge.

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm talking about casual 40k here. Yeah, the tournament min/max scene is everything you said, but I'm refereeing to balance of you play the models you own against someone else playing the models they own. Not going out and buying a bunch of dakkajets and buggies to obliterate people because they're currently having their 15 minutes of fame. 

 

I'm not saying that can't be imbalanced, I was wondering if people's experience is more a select few that try to hunt for the cracks that can break an otherwise decently balanced systems, of if the balance curve is so bad, it's noticeable at every level of play. My experience so far has been the former, but I wanted to know what people who have played more than me though about it. 

 

how is a 5-0 record with a new army balanced? 

[phandaal]

 

 

I'm not saying that can't be imbalanced, I was wondering if people's experience is more a select few that try to hunt for the cracks that can break an otherwise decently balanced systems, of if the balance curve is so bad, it's noticeable at every level of play. My experience so far has been the former, but I wanted to know what people who have played more than me though about it. 

 

 

It is a little bit of both. Some armies really are unbalanced. Some people bring their power combos into casual games.

[Tawnis]

 

 

 

I've been in and out of 40k for multiple editions across several decades, so I'm pretty confident in saying this: 40k and most other GW games are extremely unbalanced. Codex creep has always been a thing. Min-maxing broken or cost efficient units has always been a thing. New models being more powerful to push their sales isn't new either. 40k was always supposed to be a fun game to push sales, not a fair one: alot of hobbyists forget that.

 

But, this unbalance isn't new: 40k has always been unbalanced...

It has always been unbalanced, but it wasn't to the degree that the other guy takes an army that is basically nothing but new ork kits and can shoot you off the table T1. Or buys a bunch of the previously bad skitarii and now gets to shoot you off the table because the flagrantly out of whack rules say so.

 

The flash-in-the-pan pay to win format is bad in video games, and 40k is getting dumber because it is aping this model. I feel like this could be avoided by putting a year+ moratorium on using new rules in competitive play, so you don't just have the new hotness run roughshod over everything else. That would also put a brake on GW's perverse incentive of making rules that pressure you buy new models to get that sweet competitive edge.

 

 

Keep in mind, I'm talking about casual 40k here. Yeah, the tournament min/max scene is everything you said, but I'm refereeing to balance of you play the models you own against someone else playing the models they own. Not going out and buying a bunch of dakkajets and buggies to obliterate people because they're currently having their 15 minutes of fame. 

 

I'm not saying that can't be imbalanced, I was wondering if people's experience is more a select few that try to hunt for the cracks that can break an otherwise decently balanced systems, of if the balance curve is so bad, it's noticeable at every level of play. My experience so far has been the former, but I wanted to know what people who have played more than me though about it. 

 

how is a 5-0 record with a new army balanced? 

 

A few things take into account here: 

 

1) I'm playing Tau, and Kroot at that. It's one of the armies that everyone who seems to know anything about says is terrible and way underpowered, yet I'm winning. (I had a friend start collecting Tau earlier this year and the employee at the LGS tried to talk him out of it for 20 minutes thinking he'd have a terrible time and not want to play the game after a few matches.) So the question was why, is the army really as underpowered as people say, or is it that people are used to playing it in a certain way that doesn't give as well in the current edition, or any other factor that I haven't thought of? It's not a new army, it's one of the oldest codices out there, I'm just playing it in a different way.

 

2) Even if every army were 50/50 balanced, someone is going to go undefeated in a tournament or win vs win league. The sample size so far is too small to say if the army is OP, though the fact that someone is considering a Kroot army OP because of my play record delights me to no end on a personal level.

 

3) There are a myriad of other factors to consider in a win rate beyond just list building that I can point to. People never having fought Kroot before and not knowing how to handle them certainly gives me an edge. Here are a few examples: a) My army is so fast that Deep striking really puts you behind the 8 ball on it. Both the Blood Angels and Necrons players Deep Struk some key units making it easier for me to focus on one thing at a time and position properly. b ) Units picked to fight multi wound / high save models. Essentially everyone had this, Plasma Cannons, not so good against me, Dreadnought fists, oh he's only killing 30 points of Kroot a turn, ect... c) Lack of Obsec. My first target in every game is their obsec units, then I'm able to just sit on objectives and live long enough to put me ahead. d) Deployment: I have my 4 Krootox as individual units and deploy them 1 at a time, this means I can set up my entire army in response to my opponent's deployment to maximize its effectiveness. 

 

These are all non codex related factors that I'm using to my advantage. Could a list from any of these codices counter me, yeah they could, so does it make it imbalanced if they aren't taking them? Or is the fact that I anticipate the types of armies I'm going to fight and plan accordingly and come in with a better strategy to combat them what the X factor is? 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Tawnis

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I think your third point is the most relative.  Kroot have been considered the bottom of the barrel for so long that they just haven't seen table time; without any experience in fighting them, your opponents just can't adapt fast enough during the course of a single game to how they play and how you play them.  The fact that you're taking predominantly light infantry into a metagame that mostly pushes medium & heavy infantry is also part of it -- you want assault cannons against Kroot hordes, not plasma cannons for example.

 

I'd be interested to see the scores after you play the same five people again, even if the armies involved are exactly the same.

[Tawnis]

 I would too, I've talked with a few of them about having another game after the league is over. Namely the Blood Angels player as he really shafted himself with the Deep Striking Sanguinary Guard, and the Custodes player as that was by far the closest game. 

Edited November 2, 2021 by Tawnis

[MegaVolt87]

 

It's only bad because of the gradual codex roll-out. writing

 

 

Even if they released all at the same time, they would onloy work on them one at a time, meaning naturally that the later codexes would be more developed for the newer edition as time went on. 

 

The other side, is the potntial that they write earlier released codexes to fit in with 8th ed codexes, so are a bit weaker. If they wrote all before release with 9th in mind, then released all at once, then this would get around things. But people would buy fewer codexes. 

 

I'm not quite following how a concurrent codex drop that is only focused on its intended edition release would mean fewer codex sales? GW would be releasing new units/ expanded faction rules via campaign books like they always do. So you would be going back to the base codex if something catches your interest, with the benefit its already "edition ready". Plus you would be more mindful of each army as they are up to date. Every opponent is basically free advertising for GW when you think about it for the faction they use. 

 

Also some WAAC players are just oblivious. They see something cutting edge, so why not use it? If they don't someone will etc. I feel like there are a lot of WAAC players in OZ due to our high pricing, meaning with a limited budget to get the most value we only buy the best, cutting edge units in our chosen faction not to waste money. I think its like that in Eastern Europe as well for 40k maybe. I have seen it bleed into other table top systems in OZ, tight collections of miniatures but you best believe you are in for a fight as a result. 

[Special Officer Doofy]

Codex creep does make the game very imbalanced. From when my DG codex came out until my brother's admech codex came out, I won about 90%+ of the matchups. Since his codex came out, the results have flipped. And that isn't even competitive play, that's playing at my brother's house where I'm lucky if he changes out of his pajamas.

 

I don't think how competitive one plays inherently changes how imbalanced the game is. It might make you change how you list build, but that's it. If I'm playing in a local tournament or at my brother's, I'm still deploying and utilizing my list to it's max and trying to win. Only difference I would do is list building. At my brother's we just like to use all the units we have bought and painted over the years and at a tournament it's more of spam what works.

[Helias_Tancred]

 

People bemoan "gotcha stratagems" and "OP books", but more often than not they're just internet strawmen who don't really play the game - they just regurgitate what they've read on goonhammer or reddit (and I know, I do it enough!)

 

 

I definitely agree with most of your reply, but I have to disagree with this .... there have been a couple OP codexes that have come out, that are over powered, and sadly its usually due to one or two key things that allow for rampant abuse (and get addressed in a future FAQ). 

[Helias_Tancred]

It' always a mixed influence of an army rules strength (strength of the codex) of the army vs player skill. 

 

Every once in a while the dice gods will make an undisputed appearance too. 

[jarms48]

 

DE, Orks, and Ad-Mech definitely need some meaningful nerfs. Sisters and GK need to be monitored, and only might need some point adjustments. 

 

The imbalance/creep is more pronounced due to staggered codex releases. Ideally, every codex should have been released in the first year of 9th ed. GW's traditional release structure just isn't cutting it. The pandemic only made this more apparent with delays. Upcoming Nids, Tau and custodes will reign it in better maybe. Perhaps the answer is fast and hard nerfs + points increases that are then wound back as more armies get a 9th ed book. 

 

 

I doubt it, there's an obvious difference in strength if you compare the Sister and TSon codexes against Ad-Mech and Orks. The 2 former are strong, but the 2 latter are just a whole other level. The competitive meta is so bad right now that tournament games are being decided by the initial dice roll for who gets 1st turn. What's the point of even playing if you know the outcome as soon as the game starts?

[phandaal]

 

 

 

People bemoan "gotcha stratagems" and "OP books", but more often than not they're just internet strawmen who don't really play the game - they just regurgitate what they've read on goonhammer or reddit (and I know, I do it enough!)

 

I definitely agree with most of your reply, but I have to disagree with this .... there have been a couple OP codexes that have come out, that are over powered, and sadly its usually due to one or two key things that allow for rampant abuse (and get addressed in a future FAQ).

Pretty much. Believe it or not, people actually play 40k and encounter plenty of broken combos "in the wild."

 

It is unlikely that someone will encounter a flyer spam AdMech list at their casual FLGS games. Assuming all someone does is read fan sites and they do not actually play the game, they may indeed think that killer combos are restricted to what they see in tournament reports.

 

However, GW errs on the side of "ooh cool" when writing their new codexes. There is a good chance that someone playing their fun list against someone with a newer codex will get wiped out in 1.5 rounds and be left wondering why they showed up to play on the first place.

 

The difference with casual local games is that people who use their new codexes to wipe out weaker lists tend to find themselves without opponents after a while.

[Captain Idaho]

It's definitely a case that GW doesn't stress test their rules sufficiently, either by accident or design. A single Raider isn't such a problem in a Dark Eldar list, as their test games they'd have 1 plus a bunch of other stuff. Put 6 in a list and it becomes obscene.

 

But linked to game balance is this glacial pace of making changes. I keep coming back to Necrons in my examples, but as a 9th edition Codex they're just awful. They're fairly boring to play against 8th edition Codex. There was an immediate and abrupt change after Necrons were released and now we need to wait likely 3+ years before Necrone get a new Codex to fix the problems.

 

And these problems need just a little patch if you release everything with a with how it'll fit into existing releases, but there was a conscious decision not to do that for some reason.

 

Incidentally, people want to use their miniatures they bought, lovingly crafted and painted rather than have them removed instantly. People want more survivable models not models that have more killing power, when asked objectively. Poor design principle really.

[phandaal]

Incidentally, people want to use their miniatures they bought, lovingly crafted and painted rather than have them removed instantly. People want more survivable models not models that have more killing power, when asked objectively. Poor design principle really.

 

This is such a basic thing too. Hence the reason why in that recent survey I told Games Workshop that their rules writers are out of control and that someone needs to make sure they remember there is a person on the other side of any faction's awesome new whizzbang super duper killy rules.

[Valkyrion]

There's too many rules for it to be properly balanced.

I know I keep banging this drum and apologies if it's getting tedious, but the core rules + one faction rule + one sub-faction rule would suffice.

You (points generally at space marines) know that a Space Wolf and Black Templar are different things, but they (points generally at xenos) don't care if it is a sword brethren or blood claw tearing through their lines, so why does the black space marine need a books worth of different rules to the grey space marine?

 

if they insist on keeping morale, then space marines get ATSKNF. Black Templars then get +1 to hit when charging, space wolves get +1 to wound when charging, blood angels get +1 movement when charging, imperial fists get +1 to hit with shooting, dark angels get this, ultramarines get that - something nice and simple that is army wide regardless of unit type.

It was always a nice little surprise for your opponent back in the day when ones tactical squads had furious charge or tank hunters - a nice subtle bonus that could make all the difference.

You've got player skill for deciding the targets and deployment and movement, and you've got random chance with dice rolls. You don't need different things happening depending on the turn and colour of your army. 

 

 

If you massively reduce the number of rerolls then +1 to things makes a huge difference and immediately increases general survivability. 

There's proper maths about it all over the internet, but it's something like 3+ to hit with a reroll turns a 66% in to 83%, but 5+ with a reroll turns a 33% into a 66% chance, so that one aura is doubling your armies combat effectiveness. 

 

There's already too many dice used per unit anyway, so rerolling those dice just seems maddeningly unnecessary. 

 

 

Finally, if each army only has 1 faction + 1 sub-faction rule, then stratagems can become the flavour, if used properly.

As I may be poorly explaining - there is no fundamental difference a biel tan eldar and an Ulthwé one, or a blood angel and a dark angel, or a goff and a bad moon....there are cultural difference and strategic differences, but just like there's no fundamental difference between me and Ozzy Osborne, there's no difference between sub factions of the same race.

So if each player has say 2 per level of game, chosen as part of the army list from a list of 10 faction stratagems and 10 sub faction stratagems then I think that's enough.

[OldWherewolf]

I don't think they need to limit the number of rules, they just need to have the appropriate points cost.  

 

Personally, I don't want my space wolves to be identical to blood angels, or my IG to be identical to AdMech.  I want each army to have a unique flavor and playstyle, and 1 rule (or 3) is not enough to differentiate BA/SW from DA (or DG or Khorne, or TS for that matter).

[Captain Idaho]

The game isn't a causal game though. There are too many rules and many of them add very little.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Let’s look at some of the things geedub addressed during eighth edition:

 

Smite being too powerful

Reinforcements arriving 1st turn

Charging for units with keyword Fly

Certain psychic powers (Might from Beyond?)

Guilliman

Custodes

 

So back then they were very active but now not nearly so. This is a huge disappointment for me. They must be aware that the 60 point Succubus is broken as can be but haven’t done anything to address it as yet.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

I think its easy to draw conclusions from your local meta that can be drastically different from what others players reach. There are just so many factors that are hard to compare without an in depth discussion like point sizes, house rules (GWs faqs leave a lot to be desired this edition), player skill levels, terrain, table sizes, and goals of the league or gaming group. 

 

My experiences at bigger events I've felt are more consistent. For example the terrain at Adepticon and the MIchigan GT was pretty similar (been awhile since adepticon was held), point sizes are set at 2000 for each, and with enough players you can draw stronger conclusions because the skill levels should be better represented. 

 

For what its worth I do think you have a great balanced experience with 9th. I just wouldn't draw conclusions about the over all health of the game from them.  

 

 

[MegaVolt87]

As long as the spectre of codex creep for the sake of pushing model sales is a thing, it really doesn't matter how complex or basic the rules are in the end. GW believes we must be told to buy X because OP, we are clearly not capable of making our own decisions in purchases. They don't understand that if they make a balanced game, people will branch out organically in their spending/collecting naturally. I don't think the player churn with the current model is sustainable in the long term, which is why it should change. 

[ThePenitentOne]

Crusade was mentioned in one post earlier, and it is my favourite thing about 9th. I think that anyone disillusioned with Matched play should really give it a try- and by that, I mean going all-in on the escalation and campaign elements of the game.

 

Here's an example: the way the rules are written, you get your 25PL, but you also get 5 Requisition points. Now I've seen a lot of players burn those RP to raise their supply limit right off the hop, jumping Immediately to a 50PL army. I feel like that blows away a big part of the fun; you want the stratification of having those 25PL of units get to Blooded so that they are beginning the path to veteran status when a new green unit joins the game. 

 

The campaign piece is important too; if your armies grow together, you can control the growth to make sure that someone doesn't run away with a force that imbalances everything. Now again, that kind of requires a group of like minded people, because you do hear stories about Crusade Leagues that are designed to produce a winner... Which to me is absolutely the opposite of what Crusade is designed to do. I see it as a roleplaying game with models.

 

The way I see it, "Winning" doesn't matter in Crusade. If I'm playing sisters, I could lose every game I ever play... But if a unit goes through the cycle of taking a Penitent Oath, redeeming themselves in battle, and another character becomes a Living Saint, and yet another character earns a blessing of the faithful... Well who really cares whether I won or lost; a story like that is just AWESOME to play through. Think of Sanctuary 101 or the Fiery Heart at the Battle for Armageddon. Those fluff events where based on games played that resulted in an absolute slaughter, and yet they were poignant enough to be adopted as official Lore.

 

If I'm playing Drukhari, I'm all about Territorial acquisition and using that to assist my Ascendant Lord with the recruitment of specific units. So I'm not going to put a Lhamaean in my Archon's Court until I win a Poison distillery... And I don't need to win a game to do that. Crusade IS Inquisitor 28 when you play it like Inquisitor 28.

 

I realize that not everyone is fortunate enough to have a like minded group of players to facilitate this. It takes effort to steer people this way, but once you set the hook, it's set DEEP. Creating a play space in the core rules for armies as small as 25 PL is critical to the success of this method. If you drop enough money into an army to get to 2k points, that right there might be why you have trouble finding people to play this way. What I'd do is by 4 25 PL forces- same amount of dollars. But that investment allows me to recruit a friend and say "Hey, I've got this cool game I want to play with you. This is my starting army. I've got 3 other ones lying around. You can pick one and we can play and you don't have to by a thing."

 

Suddenly it's a lot easier to find an opponent. Try it out on your siblings, kids, parents, or partners if you have no friends.

 

I've been doing that since 1989. It was harder back in the day, because we had to houserule our progression system and tweak missions to make them work for small forces. These days that's baked right into the rules. I'm almost certain that anyone who actually starts a 25 PL forces and plays it, and grows it slowly to 150PL over the course of a year or two or three will lose all interest in tournament meta chasing- for me, it just pales in comparison to an ongoing story that doesn't hinge exclusively on victory or defeat.

[Snazzy]

It's definitely a case that GW doesn't stress test their rules sufficiently, either by accident or design. A single Raider isn't such a problem in a Dark Eldar list, as their test games they'd have 1 plus a bunch of other stuff. Put 6 in a list and it becomes obscene.

 

Other systems have rules for penalizing spamming, because they recognize that when 1 of something is good, more is better.  That is just about the only way you can combat spamming, outside of units that are taken for auras where you are getting diminishing returns or redundancy.

 

But, i think we are overlooking how much it is in GW's interest, even an integral part of their business model to have the rules and internal balance in a permanent imbalance.  Codexes aren't released altogether because Codexes tend to be released to coincide with new faction model releases.  It is rare to have a no models, new rules release.  Additionally, now that points are no longer tethered to what is actually printed in the Codexes (good, and bad), you don't even need to get the points right.  The crowd will playtest it, and you can always correct points post release, after all the shelves have been cleared of AdMech flyers.  In fact, maybe you drop points on something that didn't meet sales expectations in the next round of points changes.  In effect, GW is causing this problem, intentionally or not to benefit from never ending hype and gripe cycles.

 

Is the game imbalanced?  Of course.  If it isn't an issue in your particular group it is because you are playing by a Gentleman's Agreement.  And, while i appreciate gentlemen, it is the scoundrels that expose how full of holes this game really is.  Treasure your experience.

[XeonDragon]

Thought experiment re: spamming good units: how would 2k games look like if you could only take 2 from any category? 2 HQ, 2 troops, 2 elite and so on?

[phandaal]

Thought experiment re: spamming good units: how would 2k games look like if you could only take 2 from any category? 2 HQ, 2 troops, 2 elite and so on?

That does not really have anything to do with the topic of this thread.