Is 40k actually badly imblanced?

[MARK0SIAN]

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

[phandaal]

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

 

Spamming does not cause imbalance though. Certain units cause imbalance if they are spammed. There is a big difference.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

Spamming does not cause imbalance though. Certain units cause imbalance if they are spammed. There is a big difference.

I agree, I’m not necessarily talking about spamming in terms of taking multiples of one particular unit. I’m talking about being able to take nothing but elites or heavy support or fast attack with either no or very minimal commitment to troops units. If you look at older force org charts or the main one for AoD then they’re much more restrictive and I think that helps with balance.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

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.

 

I was thinking of this post when I saw the balance patch today. It was a pretty big shake up for Crons, and its really nice to see them buff the weaker armies in a free update. Not gonna say it fixes them because I'm not familiar enough with the army but I do appreciate them trying.

[Noserenda]

 

 

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

Spamming does not cause imbalance though. Certain units cause imbalance if they are spammed. There is a big difference.

I agree, I’m not necessarily talking about spamming in terms of taking multiples of one particular unit. I’m talking about being able to take nothing but elites or heavy support or fast attack with either no or very minimal commitment to troops units. If you look at older force org charts or the main one for AoD then they’re much more restrictive and I think that helps with balance.

 

That only works if troops are implicitly balanced though, and the other slots implicitly less balanced, which is far from the case. A more flexible FOC system that you pay for is pretty spot on right now and means you can build weird, thematic and interesting lists at a cost in command points.

 

I mean really there is nothing sadder than 2-3 minimum troops choices sat in a corner because GW says you must have them, let people take joy in their armies! 

 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

 

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

Spamming does not cause imbalance though. Certain units cause imbalance if they are spammed. There is a big difference.

I agree, I’m not necessarily talking about spamming in terms of taking multiples of one particular unit. I’m talking about being able to take nothing but elites or heavy support or fast attack with either no or very minimal commitment to troops units. If you look at older force org charts or the main one for AoD then they’re much more restrictive and I think that helps with balance.

That only works if troops are implicitly balanced though, and the other slots implicitly less balanced, which is far from the case. A more flexible FOC system that you pay for is pretty spot on right now and means you can build weird, thematic and interesting lists at a cost in command points.

 

I mean really there is nothing sadder than 2-3 minimum troops choices sat in a corner because GW says you must have them, let people take joy in their armies!

You’re right about the troops needing to be worth taking but I think we just see it differently in terms of the game. If people want to build themed armies that’s cool but I think giving them the tools to do so inevitably opens up serious balance issues. It’s also not something they pay for if they stick to one detachment. I think it just comes from my personal take which is that armies should generally be made up mainly of troops with a smattering of other units for specific roles or support. I accept that’s quite a big change from what it is now and what it’s always been but I’d prefer we move in that direction.

 

Overall, I think the principle that if your codex is stacked with amazing heavy options or full of brilliant elite options, then giving people the ability to take just heavy or just elite options with some HQs is going to cause major balance issues.

[Noserenda]

Troops can be great, i built a whole company of Firewarriors for a themed list once but they arent always what people are enthused by.

It does rely on each codex having compelling troops though, which isnt always true, some armies only have one troops choice and it isnt always linked to all the themes, like forcing 30 SoB's into a ministorum crusade force or some tactical marines into a deathwing force.

Equally, there will always be something to exploit, and barring some genius game design, some unit or another that is "optimal" which could even be a troops choice! (As in my old Nid army years ago where id happily use 12 troops choices) I think it would be better to keep things open and faq the specific problems (like this ork update) than straightjacket everyone.

Id also really like to avoid choices moving units around the FOC as that got real out of hand in previous editions! 

[techsoldaten]

It’s not directly related to spamming but I do think the very permissive nature of army building in 40K doesn’t help with balance. On one hand, allowing people to go heavy in one area means people can build armies how they like but it’s not good for balance if you can bring however many support/elite/fast units as you like.

 

All true. The flip side is hard counters.

 

You skew too much in your list composition and someone comes along with an army you can't touch.

 

I personally believe in risk / reward and enjoy the endless creativity that goes into list building. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If I can take 1 or 2 meta units for my army and have a big advantage against people who don’t, then I think things are imbalanced.

[jarms48]

I do like the changes from the Balance Datasheet, but I do think they were too harsh on flyers. What I would have done was change detachments. Such as:

 

- Patrol, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Reduce to 0 - 1 flyers. 

- Battalions and Brigades keep 0 - 2 flyers. 

 

For example those 6 plane Ork and Ad-Mech lists would need to take triple Battalions to take that same list. Which means they need to waste a ton of points on HQ and Troop tax. 

 

On the topic of detachments, I do think Brigades should also get 0 - 1 Lord of War and 0 - 1 Fortification slots. I think that'd definitely make them more interesting. 

[AenarIT]

The flyer limitation was certainly heavy handed, but it’s future proof at least.

Now if a faction ends up having brilliant HQ, Troops and Flyer choices there is no chance of this horrendous experience to happen again.

Imagine if Tau top tier units happened to be Commanders, Fire Warriors and Sunshark/Razorshark/Remoras/FW big flyers. It would have been Admech plane spam 2.0.

 

It’s only for matched play after all, the game has to be balanced there.

If one wants to play aeronautica imperialis in 40K, narrative games are probably better.

[phandaal]

If one wants to play aeronautica imperialis in 40K, narrative games are probably better.

Aside from the balance thing, this is also important. 40k is not a game about dueling planes. Never has been. Having GW acknowledge that publicly is nice.

[OldWherewolf]

Agree on the heavy-handed, but necessary flyer nerf. Aircraft operate on a whole different plane (pun intended), which puts them in a state of being either a: over-costed (like IG flyers) or b: over-powered like AdMech and Ork flyers. There's little room in-between, so even points are tough to calculate.
 

I do like the changes from the Balance Datasheet, but I do think they were too harsh on flyers. What I would have done was change detachments. Such as:
 
- Patrol, Vanguard, Spearhead, and Outrider: Reduce to 0 - 1 flyers. 
- Battalions and Brigades keep 0 - 2 flyers. 
 
For example those 6 plane Ork and Ad-Mech lists would need to take triple Battalions to take that same list. Which means they need to waste a ton of points on HQ and Troop tax. 
 
On the topic of detachments, I do think Brigades should also get 0 - 1 Lord of War and 0 - 1 Fortification slots. I think that'd definitely make them more interesting.

I don't know if that would solve the problem.  If tournament players could spend 6CP on an 90+% alpha-strike winlist, that's still what we would see, and it would still be a problem for every tournament and almost every local meta.

 

The biggest problem is the side effects, like Valkyries, as valkyries are not OP, but are over-costed.  They could fix Valkyries and other units by making them the same as Raiders (dedicated transport, vehicle, transport, & fly). They would just loose the 'flyer' keyword, but let them keep the "-1 to be hit by ranged weapons" ability.  GW just can't give a flyer oppressive firepower like they have been.  

[Helias_Tancred]

If I can take 1 or 2 meta units for my army and have a big advantage against people who don’t, then I think things are imbalanced.

 

Solid observation. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

 

The fact that there are even meta and non meta armies, and units just proves the game is unbalanced

If I can take 1 or 2 meta units for my army and have a big advantage against people who don’t, then I think things are imbalanced.

Solid observation.

the simple existence of meta codexes and meta units in codexes just proves the game is imbalanced Edited November 13, 2021 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Schlitzaf]

Do understand, that isn’t exactly true. In no system will any army have the ideal 50-50 vs equal opponents. Chess being the stereotypical example. And the best and most competitive players will always flock to the best armies. Even if those armies are only 0.05% or something absurdly tiny better.

 

Also I can circles around ‘meta’ players with my casual as frick army. Because most of the so called meta players don’t get how the meta actually works. In fact more often than not when I face a player who is fotm’ing they are easier to beat.

 

But that going on a tangent

[jarms48]

I don't know if that would solve the problem. If tournament players could spend 6CP on an 90+% alpha-strike winlist, that's still what we would see, and it would still be a problem for every tournament and almost every local meta.

It’s not just 6 CP, it’s all the points in tax as well. Take Orks for example. If they wanted to take a 6 plane list with my changes they’d have to take a triple Battalion. Then they’d also need to spend points on 6 mandatory HQ and 9 mandatory Troop choices. The cheapest they could get those troops would be 9 squads of Gretchin at 450 points. Basically 1/4 their total point cost and Gretchin are bad right now. Then the cheapest HQ choices are what? Weirdboys and Wurrboys? That’s another 420 points, nearly another 1/4 of the list.

 

Then they could take the 6 planes. I can’t remember all the plane costs right now, but I would assume it’d be around 700 - 800 points. That’s almost an entire 2000 point army just to take 6 planes.

 

It’d probably be more likely to see 4 plane lists. With 1 Battalion and 2 Patrols. That’s still at least 4 mandatory HQ and 5 mandatory Troop choices.

 

I do think 0 - 1 Flyer slots for Patrols, Vanguards, Spearheads, and Outriders is a good middle ground. The Dakkajet itself could probably go up 20 points like the Ad-Mech planes did too, and/or just remove Aircraft from getting the +1 to Hit from the Freebooterz culture as well.

Edited November 14, 2021 by jarms48

[OldWherewolf]

Dakkajets are 100 points base, +20 for 2 additional Supa Shootas, for 120 points for a Dakka 36/24 (at S6 Ap-1 D1).  So 3 Dakkajets is 360 points.  If they're Freebooterz, then after a unit is destroyed, the rest of the army gets +1 to hit for the rest of the phase, for a BS of 4 (same as guard).  The final plane in the list was a Wazbom Blastjet at 230 points.  So 590 points total.  Then he didn't take Battalions, he took 2 outrider detachments which only require 1 HQ and 0 troops. 

 

I see where you're going, but each of the Dakkajets is 3 dead marines, equivalent to 1.5 manticores.  So his list starts with ~18 Wyverns and a manticore with a better damage profile (D3+3 instead of D3). 

[jarms48]

Dakkajets are 100 points base, +20 for 2 additional Supa Shootas, for 120 points for a Dakka 36/24 (at S6 Ap-1 D1).  So 3 Dakkajets is 360 points.  If they're Freebooterz, then after a unit is destroyed, the rest of the army gets +1 to hit for the rest of the phase, for a BS of 4 (same as guard).  The final plane in the list was a Wazbom Blastjet at 230 points.  So 590 points total.  Then he didn't take Battalions, he took 2 outrider detachments which only require 1 HQ and 0 troops. 

 

I see where you're going, but each of the Dakkajets is 3 dead marines, equivalent to 1.5 manticores.  So his list starts with ~18 Wyverns and a manticore with a better damage profile (D3+3 instead of D3). 

 

With the buggy changes I doubt we'd see another double or triple Outrider list. Even then though, with my changes that double Outrider would only have 2 planes. Same as the GW change effectively anyway. 

 

Dakkajets are much better than Manticores. 1.5 Manticores are also 220 points, not 120. There's other things Dakkajets have that Manticores don't either:

- Inbuilt -1 to Hit.

- Ramshackle in which most AA weapons are typically S7.

- They can't use Aircraft rules to move or charge block.

- They don't have a 60 inch move which allows them to avoid Dense Cover or get around Look Out Sir.

- They're random number of shots, while a Dakkajet can reliably get 36 shots and make that 42 shots with Waaagh! 

 

This is why Dakkajets need some kind of point increase, as well as potentially limiting them from getting the +1 from Freebooterz. 

Edited November 14, 2021 by jarms48

[ServoBadger]

I don't know if 40k is badly imbalanced but the perception that it's badly imbalanced is pretty poisonous in my small gaming group.

 

My third army is Drukhari, which I've been collecting since 2010. I basically don't want to play them in my group any more. If I do, my opponent simply assumes they will lose because my army is OP. So I didn't play well, I just have an OP army.

 

One of my friends plays Necrons. The Internet has told him they're rubbish, so he assumes he will lose when he plays any of my armies. Again, I didn't win because I played well, he just has a rubbish army.

 

This is depressing for everyone in the group and I don't know what can be done about it - I've said I won't play Drukhari, but the response is always along the lines of "they were rubbish for ages, it's your turn to have an OP army."

 

Honestly it makes me want to bash my head against the wall. I don't WANT an OP army and I was happy to play my Drukhari when they were considered "rubbish".

 

At the risk of getting a telling off, this isn't limited to 40k - I am banned from playing my Kharadron Overlords in AoS because they're considered OP too.

 

I don't know what the answer is, but it's pushing us away from 40k.

[Rik Lightstar]

Internet "wisdom" will always tell us that something is either ridiculously good or horrendously bad. There is no middle ground.

 

Units are deemed worthless because they're 1 or 2 points per model overcosted. What that really means is that you can't efficiently spam the unit at full unit size.

 

That's not to say that some units (looking at you Primaris Tanks) aren't way overcosted, or that some (Ork Aircraft) aren't noticeable cheaper than they probably should be.

 

These issues only really appear when people decide to take everything to extremes. And approach list building in a reductive way that only looks at unit efficiency.

 

"Chasing the Meta" is expensive in any game, but more so in 40k than a lot of others.

 

There's an identifiable Meta to most games and sports, some change slowly and some quickly. If everyone is talking about how good Rock is then it's time to break out the Paper not cry about Scissors being terrible.

 

This is again compounded by "Internet Wisdom" where for example everyone KNOWS Necrons and Guard aren't any good so they don't take tools to beat them. Just like Orks weren't very good until the latest book, all of a sudden they're way better and people aren't taking or even don't own tools to beat them.

 

There will also always be some bad match ups for every army, Eldar historically for example have been pretty strong against Marines, but less good against Guard. Does that mean that Marines were terrible and Guard were great? No it meant that Paper beat Rock but lost to Scissors.

 

Rik

[Valkyrion]

I'm not a competitive player and I don't attend tournaments, so can anyone who does (or knows about it) answer this;  if the current 'OP' armies didn't have reroll auras, would it make a huge difference to the army in question, or do they not rely on them?

[OldWherewolf]

They don't rely on them.  For example, the entire Ork Freebootaz army gets +1 to hit as soon as 1 enemy unit is destroyed.  So the orks go from having tons of dakka, to tons of dakka hitting on 4s (from 5s).  It's a straight 16% bump in lethality.

 

DE and AdMech have a different problem.  Since release, those meta units have been waaaayyyy undercosted compared to everything else in the game.  For example, my AdMech rangers (5 models) is 40 points, my IG squad (10 models) is 55 points, both units have the same durability but guard squad output is less then half the ranger squad.

 

So all the DE and AdMech units "trade up" against other opponents (e.g. trading 70 point units for 100 point units), and they've got more of them than any other army. 

[Schlitzaf]

They don't rely on them. For example, the entire Ork Freebootaz army gets +1 to hit as soon as 1 enemy unit is destroyed. So the orks go from having tons of dakka, to tons of dakka hitting on 4s (from 5s). It's a straight 16% bump in lethality.

 

DE and AdMech have a different problem. Since release, those meta units have been waaaayyyy undercosted compared to everything else in the game. For example, my AdMech rangers (5 models) is 40 points, my IG squad (10 models) is 55 points, both units have the same durability but guard squad output is less then half the ranger squad.

 

So all the DE and AdMech units "trade up" against other opponents (e.g. trading 70 point units for 100 point units), and they've got more of them than any other army.

1) That always been true. Rangers/Vangaurd have 7-9 points for awhile. But less take this to the test.

 

10 Wounds 5+ > 15 Bolter Wounds inflict > 24 Hits > 36 Attacks

5 Wounds 4+ Save > 10 Bolter Wounds > 15 Hits > 24 Attacks.

 

So you’ll actually 33% more durable. For about 30% more. And additionally furthermore more compact unjts like this need higher damage. But lers look at math.

Damage (Admech Rangers)

10 > 6.66 or 5 > 4.444 or 3.32 > 3.6 or 2.76

Gaurdsman

9 > 4.5 > 2.25 > 1.45

18 > 9 > 4.5 > 3

 

They only have dbl your output at range. Albeit moving not doesn’t matter. So your just wrong. The Admech do more damage when your not in rapid. And they are not as durable.

[OldWherewolf]

I use Intercessors as my comparison target, since they're kinda in the middle of the road target unit:

 

Guard (no rapid fire, because Rangers get the advantage of range):

9 shots, 4.5 hits, 1.5 wounds, .5 get past the armor save

 

Rangers:

10 Galvanic Rifle shots, 6.67 hits, 3.35 wounds, 1.67 get past armor save.

 

.5 is less than half of 1.67

 

Intercessor shooting ( use rapid-fire here for volume of fire durability)

Guard : 10shots yields 3.7 wounds

Rangers: 10 shots yields 2.9 wounds. 

 

That's just a 1W difference, with Admech having a 6++.  there's only 5 members of the AdMech squad with 10 in the IG squad.  Model for Model, AdMech is better, but after 2 rounds of shooting they're both basically dead.  So I call that about the same overall durability.

Edited November 15, 2021 by Brainpsyk