Is 40k actually badly imblanced?

[Schlitzaf]

Okay The IG are also 10 man squad. And lose 4 dudebros is losing only 40% of the squad vs losing 3 dudebros which is 60% of the squad. Also there a mobility situation and we aren’t playing planet bowling ball. Heavy 2. Admech don’t want to move. Lasgun IG do.

[OldWherewolf]

Okay The IG are also 10 man squad. And lose 4 dudebros is losing only 40% of the squad vs losing 3 dudebros which is 60% of the squad. Also there a mobility situation and we aren’t playing planet bowling ball. Heavy 2. Admech don’t want to move. Lasgun IG do.

Ya, but the guard squad is 55 points, AdMech is 40 (IIRC), so with 55 points as the baseline,

10 guard = 2.7 rounds of shooting, Rangers (at 55 points is 6.875 models) die in 2.37 rounds, a difference of .33 rounds of shooting (which is peanuts in 9th).  Again, the durability is about the same, but we also get to increase the output of rangers by 35% (ish).

 

Yes guard have a mobility advantage, *IF* you have an officer within 6" (for even more points), or (for even more points) you pay for Vox Casters for both the officer and squads (MMM! doesn't chain across squads).

 

Then rangers have a 6++, doctrines, and no need for orders, and a better BS, and always have 2 shots at 30" (even at -1 to hit), guard don't get the 2nd shot until 12", have a pre-game move, and good stratagems.  AdMech also have an-order like ability with data-tether, but the options there are better than guard orders. 

 

Point for point, rangers are better, but even Rangers are still not as good as Skitarii Vanguards. 

 

So Rangers >>> IG Infantry squad.

 

 

[Schlitzaf]

So half a turn worth of shooting that a MASSIVE difference. It adds up quite a bad. Furthermore losing those 4 in the gaurd squad doesn’t hampers there effectiveness nearly as much as compared to losing the 3 admech models.

 

And this ALWAYS been true sense beginning of time for these models. Now the latest book buff admech here I don’t disagree. But if you compared even garbage 1w tactical to haurd under criteria you sre using it be op nerf pls.

[phandaal]

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.

 

 

Should be a 50% bump, yeah? 2 out of 6 chance becomes 3 out of 6. They hit 50% more often.

[OldWherewolf]

It's how you look at it, but both are correct.

 

looking at it from 2 hits to 3 hits, it's a 50% improvement of the shots that hit.  Looking at it going from a 33% chance of hitting to a 50% chance of hitting is a 16% jump. 

[sairence]

Are we really arguing basic Guard infantry vs basic AdMech infantry?

[Valkyrion]

If we were to remove ALL rerolls and +1's, regardless of source, would the game become instantly more balanced?

 

Maybe give commander level characters a reroll to represent their smashiness, but otherwise the result of the dice is the result of the dice.

 

I could be the worst player with the worst army playing against the best player with the best army, but if they only rolled 1's and I only rolled 6's then I would likely win, no?

By using rerolls you give the player rolling the worse dice rolls a second chance. Why? 

Wigan beat Man City in the FA Cup final against all odds in a one off game. Had the competition rules stated a two legged tie, then the chance of Man City still losing the tie would have been immeasurably small. 

 

We're modifying a chance out of 6 - any reroll or modifier in that small a number is going to have a huge effect. Too much, IMO, to be more or less army wide. 

[MARK0SIAN]

I think the designers are perhaps aware that the rerolls got out of hand in the previous edition. In 9th we’ve seen things like changes to the chapter master’s buff and the introduction of ‘core’ to try and tone down the rerolls. However I believe they are still too prevalent, it’s pretty boring on either side of the table when a roll doesn’t really count because you get to do it again if you don’t like the result.

 

That said, too much is balanced around the rerolls at present and not all armies rely on them to the same degree so I don’t think the game would suddenly become more balanced if you removed them. I just think you’d end up with issues in other areas.

 

I would like to see a lot less rerolls in the game overall but it’s the kind of change that needs either new codexes or even a new edition.

[Mandragola]

Rerolls aren't the problem with balance, though I agree they can be annoying. Current top tier armies aren't particularly reliant on rerolls. Ultimately, they're something that can be balanced or not, depending on how many points you pay for them.

 

It is the case that it becomes harder to balance units when they may or may not get buffs. A White Scar bike is better than an Imperial Fist one, but they cost the same amount. In theory that can be ok because we expect White Scar players to take bikes and Imperial Fists to take other stuff that's better for them, typically featuring big guns. Problems come up with this sort of thing very often though, because the different buffs aren't equally effective.

 

I see balance as an issue that affects all players, not just tournament gamers. If anything, it actually doesn't affect the people competing for the top spots at all. Rather than suffering from the game's imbalance they are utilising it to succeed, by taking only the best stuff.

 

Tournament players don't usually buy models just because they like them, then spend hours building and painting them, only to find that they are grossly underpowered in the game. This happens to kids though, and it really sucks. I remember my aunt complaining that she'd bought a load of GW stuff for her two sons but they got bored of it quickly because, at the time, the marines always beat the orks. I don't remember what edition this was in and it doesn't really matter as this problem has always been an issue, and still is. Generally, people enjoy games when both sides have a chance to win.

 

Personally, the worst gaming experiences I've had have been at narrative events. This is where you inevitably get everything from kids (and adults) with armies that aren't remotely legal and who barely know the rules to people who've copied whatever list won the last major - and who also sometimes barely know the rules. It's really frustrating to play in an environment where I can't know what to bring, because sometimes I'll sweep aside my opponent no matter what I do, and others I'll be facing an average player behind a godlike army that someone else designed.

[phandaal]

It's how you look at it, but both are correct.

 

looking at it from 2 hits to 3 hits, it's a 50% improvement of the shots that hit. Looking at it going from a 33% chance of hitting to a 50% chance of hitting is a 16% jump.

It is a big jump in relative power for sure. Helps people see that +1 to hit for an entire army of Orky dakka is a really big deal.

[Tawnis]

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.

Sadly, this seems like just as much an issue with the mentality of your play group as it is about any balance issues in the game. The thing I could see as an answer would be to try and start with a clean slate. Whenever 10th edition comes out (or at some other arbitrary cutoff that makes sense), have your playgroup make an agreement that they will stop looking at forums and YouTube channels about 40k, or following tournament results. If no one knows what the "meta" armies are, there is a much greater chance that people will play armies they think are cool/fun and will land someone in the middle of the power scale. If someone's army is strong, it incentivizes figuring out a way to compensate with what resources you have rather than just "knowing" that they are OP and giving up. 

 

Another option could be trying to shake up the points level you use as different armies seem to be more/less advantageous at different points levels. I'm not sure how well my Kroot would do at 2k, but they are certainly doing very well in the 1k bracket. 

[LameBeard]

If you have a situation where you have (say) 4 players in your gaming group, and one is considered “OP” but the others are considered more roughly equal, then you could try the bidding system:

 

It would work like this. OP player states their army: “it’s 2k of Ork buggies and flyers <insert your favourite latest hotness here>, what are my bids?”

 

The other 3 make secret bids on paper. They are bidding the points they think they need to take on the orks. The bids are revealed: the lowest bidder takes on the orks, with the points they bid.

 

The other 2 players play each other.

 

The bidders are incentivised to be realistic - going too low, they are outclassed by the orks, going too high, they give the “winning” bid space for any easy ride. It becomes a competition week-by-week to see who can beat the orks at the lowest points. Of course you need a bigger army than 2k now. But a few games like this and you find out quickly just how OP they really are.

[phandaal]

Could just ask your buddy to play a little easier too.

[Valkyrion]

Is it common to have this many different unbalanced armies in one edition?

 

I think the IG Leafblower and Draigobomb were in the same edition, and I drifted in and out of the hobby throughout 2010-2020, but I can't remember a time when three codexes were so overpowered in a little over a year of the edition coming out.

[phandaal]

Is it common to have this many different unbalanced armies in one edition?

 

I think the IG Leafblower and Draigobomb were in the same edition, and I drifted in and out of the hobby throughout 2010-2020, but I can't remember a time when three codexes were so overpowered in a little over a year of the edition coming out.

 

Not sure about 40k but I do remember Fantasy imbalance being so bad it basically killed the game, and that is what led to the AoS relaunch. Do not think that will happen with 40k though.

[Rogue]

If you have a situation where you have (say) 4 players in your gaming group, and one is considered “OP” but the others are considered more roughly equal, then you could try the bidding system:

 

It would work like this. OP player states their army: “it’s 2k of Ork buggies and flyers <insert your favourite latest hotness here>, what are my bids?”

 

The other 3 make secret bids on paper. They are bidding the points they think they need to take on the orks. The bids are revealed: the lowest bidder takes on the orks, with the points they bid.

 

The other 2 players play each other.

 

The bidders are incentivised to be realistic - going too low, they are outclassed by the orks, going too high, they give the “winning” bid space for any easy ride. It becomes a competition week-by-week to see who can beat the orks at the lowest points. Of course you need a bigger army than 2k now. But a few games like this and you find out quickly just how OP they really are.

That's how Space Hulk operated at one point. Players looked at the mission, and both decided how many points of terminators they needed to complete it. Lowest bid won, the other player was the 'stealers or Chaos terminators or whatever.

 

On a similar but 40k-related note, when I've played against my wife, we've used a handicap system. Every time I win, she gets more points to play with next time (or I get less). If she wins, she loses a step of that advantage, or it stays the same if it was close.

 

So at combat patrol level, if I won three in a row, I'd be looking at facing an 800pt force in the fourth game, with only 500pts to take them on. It balances itself out eventually, keeps it challenging for the stronger player, and helps the other player to feel like they're in with a chance each time.

[LameBeard]

I like the handicap system idea. I might need that against my son (who routinely trounces me in Sigmar).

 

Yeah I remember the Space Hulk bidding although I don’t think I got to use it much, which is a shame.

[jarms48]

Is it common to have this many different unbalanced armies in one edition?

 

I think the IG Leafblower and Draigobomb were in the same edition, and I drifted in and out of the hobby throughout 2010-2020, but I can't remember a time when three codexes were so overpowered in a little over a year of the edition coming out.

 

Correct. 5th edition Guard were very strong, but nothing some point cost adjustments couldn't have fixed. GK and SW were a much larger problem, which needed at least a FAQ to tone down the most outrageous things and point adjustments.

[OldWherewolf]

Art of War 40K did a Faction Tier List video a few days ago where they covered a lot of this.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrkMF9BHVAs, this time it's by Nick Nanavati and Richard Siegler, and accounts for the new GW Dataslate.

 

It's an interesting watch, with only 3 S-tier armies being GK, DE and Bugs because all 3 of those have broken mechanics.  Of the D-tier armies, 2 are Tau and GSC with the next codexes, that just leaves IG and Chaos.

 

Dropping those 7 armies, the meta is in a pretty good state with the other 22 if they are piloted correctly (though have of them are marine chapters).  They all have at least 1 competitive build and have play into the A-tier armies (even if it is an uphill battle).

 

The other problem is that most gaming club members aren't top-tier players.  So skill plays a HUGE factor in the outcome of games (S-Tier armies excluded).  At the top level of player skill, the lists make a huge difference because there is so little gap between the players.  But at the lower levels, where we don't have 5-turn strategies, we haven't seen every combination of tactics and know what to do in every situation  means skill plays a much bigger factor.

 

But I believe it's also in the players.  A bad player will blame their army list for a loss, so they will look for the broken army/list to make up for their lack of skill (which was me for a long time).  The people playing the broken armies should tone down their list, or they will quickly find themselves without opponents (if potential opponents have the courage to say "sorry, but I'm looking for a different type of game"). 

 

 

 

[phandaal]

Art of War 40K did a Faction Tier List video a few days ago where they covered a lot of this.

 

this time it's by Nick Nanavati and Richard Siegler, and accounts for the new GW Dataslate.

 

 

Top 5 Armies in the World:

 

Dark Angels

Dark Angels

Dark Angels

Dark Angels

 

And

 

Dark Angels

Edited November 20, 2021 by phandaal

[Snazzy]

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.

 

Because army building is where most the decision making actually happens in 40k.  Say what you will about the complexity of the game, 40k doesn't offer that many surprises on the table.  Good players have good insights.  However, most of what makes for a good player in competitive vs someone with a net list is understanding the minutia of model placement and how Secondaries work. 

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

Is it common to have this many different unbalanced armies in one edition?

 

I think the IG Leafblower and Draigobomb were in the same edition, and I drifted in and out of the hobby throughout 2010-2020, but I can't remember a time when three codexes were so overpowered in a little over a year of the edition coming out.

 

Correct. 5th edition Guard were very strong, but nothing some point cost adjustments couldn't have fixed. GK and SW were a much larger problem, which needed at least a FAQ to tone down the most outrageous things and point adjustments.

 

 

As a space wolf player, I really think they could've fixed us with points.

 

1) Adding a substantial point increase to Rune priests (runic weapons were broken), and a point charge for JAWS. 

 

2) charging an extra 2 pts a model for greyhunters (1 for counter charge, 1 for chainswords)

 

3) charging an extra 2 pts for long fangs for split fire, and getting rid of the ML discount.

 

That does assume some discounts on other fractions, and that wound allocation would get a fix. It stinks that we don't have a lot of data from that era to piece together a winrate for those fractions. 

[Mandragola]

Tournaments in the pre-internet (or at least less 40k content on the internet) time were very different. There were far fewer tournaments, the players weren't famous outside of the events themselves and you didn't necessarily know what you'd face. With no forums or "experts" to follow online you had to do your own research on what would be good. You could bring stuff that other people weren't ready for, and have the same thing done to you.

 

Back in 3rd edition I won a lot of tournaments (including a joint best general at the UKGT) with an Alaitoc ranger force army that only lost a single game throughout the whole edition. I switched to Tau for a challenge. Then someone else spotted a different top army (incidentally based on the same craftworld Eldar sub-codex) based on a massive Seer council and black guardians with starcannons, so most of 4th involved that vs Iron Warriors. I remember being up on table 2 or 3 with my Tau at some WHW tournament where my opponent and the four players either side of us all had Ulthwé or Iron Warriors. I'm still quite pleased I could do well with Tau in that meta, against stuff like siren daemon princes and 20-man seer councils.

Edited November 21, 2021 by Mandragola

[Noserenda]

Hehe i was playing Alaotic rangers around that time and continuing against the endless broken Chaos and Eldar lists at the time too, albeit not as successfully but it was quite satisfying. I deliberately took no Starcannons to prove a point too because im a machocist :D 

[ThePenitentOne]

 

Personally, the worst gaming experiences I've had have been at narrative events. This is where you inevitably get everything from kids (and adults) with armies that aren't remotely legal and who barely know the rules to people who've copied whatever list won the last major - and who also sometimes barely know the rules. It's really frustrating to play in an environment where I can't know what to bring, because sometimes I'll sweep aside my opponent no matter what I do, and others I'll be facing an average player behind a godlike army that someone else designed.

 

I'd like to know/ hear more about narrative events. What you describe here doesn't actually sound narrative at all, but then the term does need some clarification.

 

Right now, according to the BRB, narrative = Crusade.

 

Personally, I don't subscribe to this definition- and I'm a DIEHARD Crusader. I believe that narrative games can be played in any of GW's 3 ways with the key being... well, a narrative- ie. a story that gives the battles an over-arching context. I see this as being achieved in a number of ways- a discreet setting and timeframe; campaign rules; team/ group objectives; escalation, etc.

 

I would LOVE to actually play through an entire Crusade escalation campaign using all the Charadon resources or all the Octarius resources. It would take some wizard GM's to pull this off, but I think it could be epic if done properly.

 

I've heard people speak of Crusade leagues where the goal is to produce a "winner" - in some ways, this seems antithetical to the whole idea of Crusade. But even this needs clarification: if by "winner" we mean winning player, well to me, that just seems like people not really getting the intent of "narrative." If, however, we mean "winning faction" within a given theatre or theatres of war, well that's kinda dead on.

 

Personally, if I was running a regular Crusade campaign, I'd have each player select a personal story goal connected to the overall development of their army in addition to creating the story conditions for the type of faction victory described above.