Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I started this in another thread and it peaked my interest enough that I wanted to start another thread to discuss it. Here is some background. Reecius stated this in his battle report:

"There is no system that will allow the average player to bring Necrons or Daemon Hunters and be on equal footing with Wolves, IG or BA."

I singled out this statement and came up with a quick idea that could do just this. Here is my comp answer to this statement.

No army may take more than 4 of any named weapon ( or model that can produce such a weapon) that can produce a str 5 or more shot (except Tau Fire Warriors and Pathfinders), no more than 5 of any named CC weapon of str 8 or higher and no more than one unit that can cast psychic powers with a die roll are allowed per force org. slot.


** this has been edited since people have originally seen it so some of their comments might seem strange**

Reecius countered with this statement:

@Darth

The problem with that, or any similar system is that it bones shallow dexes. Deep dexes like MEQ's, IG, etc. can get around it fairly easily.

What about Tau? Only 4 Rail Guns? Only 4 Burst Cannons?

Crons? Only 5 Destroyers, Heavy Destroyers, Immortals or Pariahs (not that anyone takes them!) or 4 Wraiths?

Eldar: Only 4 S.Lasers, S.Cannons or B.Lances? ONly one Farseer? Only one warlock in troops?

Sisters: Only 4 flamers or meltas? That's all they have!

Grey Knights: Only 4 psycannons or incinerators?

and the list goes on and on.

For one, pragmatically, it means people would have to drastically alter their lists. For two, it hurts the weaker armies more than it hurts the stronger armies which is the opposite effect of what it was meant to.

Even in Oz where they run tiered systems in Fantasy, giving weak armies more points than strong armies, what often happens is that it only provides more VP's to the stronger armies to kill!

Comp just does not work. 5th ed 40K is as good as we have had it. Stick to book missions which punish MSU armies which are the best right now, and balances things fairly well.

If someone brings a weaker dex, they simply have to accept that they will have a tougher road to walk, but that it will be so much more glorious if they succeed!

and I replied with this:


I don't think you have thought it through. All you said was you didn't think there was a comp system where Necrons and DH could compete against SW and IG. This system does not punish the older/weaker codex's because those dex's don't have the spam options the newer codex's have. The current incarnations of SW and IG is to spam Missiles, Lascannons and Meltaguns. This is denied. Dash's Necrons are spared these comp rules. Why would wraiths be effected? They are only str 6 and if you spam them, you aren't taking destroyers anyway. I forgot anout the Tau basic rifle being str 5. There could be an exception for them in that. Yes Tau can bet by just fine with only 4 railguns. Don't they have fusion guns? Don't they have seeker missiles? I think the Tau get off pretty good in this comp system. They don't have to face 15 long fang misssiles, only 4. That's great for them.

GK's don't spam psycannons and incinerators. They spam str 6 nemisis blades and storm bolters and those aren't effected. GK still get 4 meltaguns from stormtroopers and there can't be more than 1 Vendetta facing off against them. No more than 4 chimera's can be across the table from them (multi-lasers are str 6).

Eldar can be just fine with only 4 scatter lasers. Footdar regularly field 2-3 wraithlords and the warwalkers aren't a must have for those lists. Even so, 2 warlwalkers can have 2x scatter lasers and the 3rd one can have shuriken cannons. One Farseer is enough. Most people take an Avatar or a Phoenix Lord as the 2nd HQ. Why would warlocks be effected? They don't cast psychic powers. I should change the rule to say the unit must be able to cast the psychic power with a die roll.

Sisters have 4 flamers, 4 heavy flamers, 4 meltaguns, 4 infernus pistols, they open up armor with their HV tank anyway which they can still have 3. Sisters can have IG allies to open up more heavy weapons if they want it or else they will have to grab other units in their dex. Units that might perform better win an environement with only 4 enemy lascannons, only 5 enemy terminators, only 4 enemy Obliterators, etc....

I'm afraid I don't see how the list goes on and on. In fact the more I think about it thebetter it sounds. Yes players will have to change their army lists around. They will have to remove the 5th-15th missiles launcher from the SW army. They will have to take something else besides their 5th-9th Chimera. Only one Psychic Battle suad will be allowed and only 1 lash Prince. Players will need to diversify their lists and make changes. The top competitve players do that whenever a new book comes out. Do you think people sat around with 15 SW missile launcher marines before the codex came out? No they saw the unit and they bought new models.

This idea isn't to try and get the whole 40k tourney scene to change. No sir. I'm just responding to your comment that no COMP formet could put Necrons and DH on an equal footing as SW and IG and I think it can. It looks good to me.



I am not fighting with Reecius about this. I want a good discussion on the topic. The topic is will my idea work to bring SW and IG more in line with the older/weaker codex armies and allow Necrons and Daemon Hunters to compete with Space Wolves and Imperial Guard on the tourney scene. Remember the rules. No more than 4 of any shooting weapon of str 5 or higher. No more than 5 named cc weapons on str 8 or higher (which means only 5 thunderhammers, but you could have 5 t-hammers and 5 powerfists in the same army).

Thunderwolf cavalry doesn't seem to be touched with these rules, but you can't have LF missiles everywhere. Orks will lose out on Lootas and severely limit their Tankbusta unit. I winder if an amendment to the comp rules would allow only 1 unit that can go above the shooting rule limit? Something that still limits an army to 4 loota guns, but you can have 15 in one unit?

Well, all tau armies would all be illegal. You have to take at least 6 fire warriors, each with a S5 pulse carbine.

Also, allowing thunderhammers and powerfists gives marines twice the access to fists that chaos have.

You want comp? It's called the "Force Organization Chart." DONE. Now learn to play the game, you pansies.

Comp will never work because GW's games are not written well enough to have tournaments. You are looking for a plug to fix a dam made of wicker.

He did address the tau in a comment in the italics, Polonius, saying they would need an exception to the str 5 rule for their troops.

I think this is too broad. We were discussing this in the DCM forum (super secret bat-cave ftw!!!) also spurred by Reecius' battle report. And I think I've become convinced that comp, if used, would need to be army-specific.

These broad strokes just knock some armies down while not necessarily affecting other powerful builds. This one in particular favors armies that can field a variety of weapons, as Reecius pointed out.

Basically, you would force more variety onto lists, but I don't necessarily think that would adjust the power level of what armies are the strongest. And you would invalidate some fun, non-abusive lists with restrictions this broad-sweeping. Personally, I don't think it's a good system :-/. Just my $0.02...

I'm looking for an idea, not your opinion on Comp. I want specifics. Saying something either works or doesn't and then leaving it at that is useless.

I know I will have to address the Tau rifle and consider that done.

DarthDiggler wrote:I'm looking for an idea, not your opinion on Comp. I want specifics. Saying something either works or doesn't and then leaving it at that is useless.

not everyone has ideas, but everyone has opinions. i look at this and say "wow, this isn't a away to balance a game as broken as 40k because the codexes are so different and players taking advantage of their codexes will always happen". I can't give you advice on how to fix it, but as long as I say that "this doesn't really work", it lets you know that you can still improve it.

Joetaco wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:I'm looking for an idea, not your opinion on Comp. I want specifics. Saying something either works or doesn't and then leaving it at that is useless.

not everyone has ideas, but everyone has opinions. i look at this and say "wow, this isn't a away to balance a game as broken as 40k because the codexes are so different and players taking advantage of their codexes will always happen". I can't give you advice on how to fix it, but as long as I say that "this doesn't really work", it lets you know that you can still improve it.

Fair enough. How about this then. I think Comp has no place in competitive 40k. I'm against it. Now that I've said it let me say something else. These comp rules do work to balance the game. I have seen nothing to prove otherwise. You are entitled to your opinion, but "this really doesn't work" means nothing to this discusion. I guess people told the Wright Borthers their plane wouldn't fly either.

I've seen nothing to tell me this system doesn't take the teeth out of the current top armies and spreads the 40k power builds to more codex's than ever before. Daemon Hunters can beat Space Wolves in this format. Period.

Make Necron Gauss weapons AP1 vs. vehicles.

Update DH/WH vehicle costs and stats (i.e. 5 fire point 55 point Chimeras), and ensure allies retention

Create a Belial character in the SM dex that is in line with DA Belial and enables Terminator Troops.

Problems solved.

That's all really in need of amendment. The older codices have fewer top tier builds, but almost all have some top tier builds. You won't increase the VARIETY of competitive build in a balanced fashion without completely new dexes ... homebrew or GW release. So why try to artificially screw with dexes that already have great variety to them?

You'll only harm the lesser dexes worse, to be honest. Bring them in line with the above changes and every dex will at least be CAPABLE of fielding at least one *FULLY* competitive build (even those ones can field 85% competitive at present), and that's more than anyone could ask for. Once their respective dexes are updated, they'll gain all the variety of the newer ones, in a fully GW-sanctioned fashion.

I have Vassal, as well. I'm happy to build a list out of any dex and take it up against any list from said IG/SW dexes of unfairness. The game's not materially imbalanced, and homebrew is only going to worsen it. Anyone can optimize and "break" any codex; giving them new restrictions simply encourages those with access to the greatest variety to break your new changes - and the greatest variety is SW/IG/etc., aka newer dexes. Their strength is not MISSILE SPAM with long fangs, or Manticore spam, or Chimera spam. It's VARIETY / newness. You can't really fix that, unless you just homebrew your own game more or less ... and what's the point in that?

I will never understand why those who are obsessed with the "need" for comp will try to screw with / break the perceived "top" dexes, instead of simply making marginal changes to the perceived "weak" dexes, which are almost always fewer in number.



PS - As far as it working or not, Space Wolves can still spam grey hunters in rhinos until they are blue in the face, and slaughter equivalently nerfed DH all day long while doing it. Codices with variety live off the affordability of key components and the flexibility of force organization selections. This is why the Tyranid are awful (and why your system screws them over even more than they are, saying goodbye to their already paltry ranged anti-tank).

DH can currently spam out solid effectiveness by abusing the guard allies rule. Sure it'd be nice if they could work as "pure GK," but they can't, just like pure scout marines are terrible and Sisters Repentia are lolarious. Fixating on an individual "notion" of an ideal build and breaking the entire rest of the game trying to make it feasible is unproductive. Single out what build you're desperate to have in for you to feel the game is balanced and fix IT to bring it UP to speed, instead of trying to hamfistedly break everything else.

PS - Tone here is positive / constructive, since the net is toneless; please don't misread it as me being "harsh" ... I'm not.



B/c I'm bored, "breaking" this comp readily and easily with SW w/out harming their basic listcracking power ... 2k example

Thunderwolf Lord w/ Wolftooth Necklace, Power Fist, Storm Shield, Bear, TW Mount, Runic Armor
Rune Priest w/ Jaws, Lightning, Chooser, Storm Bolter

4 Wolf Guard w/ Combi-Meltaguns

9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
5 Grey Hunters w/ Flamer, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
5 Grey Hunters w/ Flamer, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon

10 Fenrisian Wolves

5 Long Fangs w/ 4 Missile Launchers, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
5 Long Fangs w/ 4 Lascannons, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
Vindicator w/ Dozer Blade

Let's see
4 x Twin-Linked Assault Cannons
4 x Combi-Meltaguns
4 x Meltaguns
4 x Lascannons
4 x Missile Launchers
1 x Demolisher Cannon
1 x Psychic Power
ThunderFist Lord w/ Puppy Power
Still tons of Grey Hunters properly kitted w/ Standards
Still way more vehicles and long range fire than DH or whoever you're trying to help is going to be able to field

What's accomplished here? It doesn't encourage a list that loses its power, it just encourages a little creative thinking and weapon diversification (NOT strength diversification, mind you).

DarthDiggler, I gave you an idea! It was that army-specific comp restirctions could do what you're looking for better than a single, sweeping restriction like this. While elegant in its simplicity, it also inadvertantly penalizes many armies unecessarily or unintentionally. That was my point...

MVBrandt wrote:B/c I'm bored, "breaking" this comp readily and easily with SW w/out harming their basic listcracking power ... 2k example

Thunderwolf Lord w/ Wolftooth Necklace, Power Fist, Storm Shield, Bear, TW Mount, Runic Armor
Rune Priest w/ Jaws, Lightning, Chooser, Storm Bolter

4 Wolf Guard w/ Combi-Meltaguns

9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
9 Grey Hunters w/ Meltagun, Standard, Rhino + WG
5 Grey Hunters w/ Flamer, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
5 Grey Hunters w/ Flamer, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon

10 Fenrisian Wolves

5 Long Fangs w/ 4 Missile Launchers, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
5 Long Fangs w/ 4 Lascannons, Razorback w/ Twin-Linked Assault Cannon
Vindicator w/ Dozer Blade

Let's see
4 x Twin-Linked Assault Cannons
4 x Combi-Meltaguns
4 x Meltaguns
4 x Lascannons
4 x Missile Launchers
1 x Demolisher Cannon
1 x Psychic Power
ThunderFist Lord w/ Puppy Power
Still tons of Grey Hunters properly kitted w/ Standards
Still way more vehicles and long range fire than DH or whoever you're trying to help is going to be able to field

What's accomplished here? It doesn't encourage a list that loses its power, it just encourages a little creative thinking and weapon diversification (NOT strength diversification, mind you).

Thank you for the feedback. A well built list, underpowered compared to what the SW throws out there right now, but well built. I don't want to go tit-for-tat on units vs. DH unts, but the DH would stand a better chance is all I'll say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:DarthDiggler, I gave you an idea! It was that army-specific comp restirctions could do what you're looking for better than a single, sweeping restriction like this. While elegant in its simplicity, it also inadvertantly penalizes many armies unecessarily or unintentionally. That was my point...

I understand. Army specific comp restrictions might be to unwieldy. Something simple and universal can be applied to new codex releases and there wouldn't have to be so much hand wringing over a new dex. Sometimes simple is better. Very complex rules systems lend themselves to the most abuse of rules. If the only thing that comes out of a simple comp restriction is to lower the gap between competitive dex's and older/weaker ones I think that would be a success.

All comp does is benefit armies with more options. If the goal is to balance out the expansion teams (DH/WH, necron, tau and DE) then it will fail because those same armies are the ones with the LEAST options

As the above post proves, if you have a ton of different weapons and units then it doesnt matter if you restrict one or two

I shudder to think how bad DE would do in this version of comp. Only 4 Dark Lances and 4 Blasters? I'm sure everyone would be terrified of the all mighty splinter rifle.

I agree with MVBrandt - this version of comp doesn't punish IG/SW - its makes them even more broken. They have so many options most other armies wouldn't be able to match them.

It doesn't make sense to try to cripple other armies for the sake of 2 armies.

I agree. this punishes the older codices with lower page counts/lower number of unit and weapon choices much more than the newer dexes. 3rd and early 4th edition codicies simply don't have the variety of effective weaponry to survive with this comp system; they generally have a single unit that is good at any one role and not very good at others hence the need for spam in older books. it's not like the tau-necron-DH/WH-dark eldar coalition is rockin' the tourney scene.

The only way I see to balance all of the codexes against each other for a tournament is to have the TO write a specific build for each army and only allow that to be played. It would eliminate all of the power builds and even the playing field if done properly. It of course wouldn't be popular. Or you could only allow one book to make your list from.

It would be nice if GW would balance everything, but they have repeatedly proven they don't care to try.

@Crimson Devil

I don't think anyone would go to a tournament where they had to build a list the TO gave them and it was the same as every other list form that dex. That would not be fun at all.

Limiting the special weapons an army can take arbitrarily is not a good idea. People would have to change their armies just to play, that wouldn't be fun nor would it happen.

The issue is that the older dexes need a revamp, not a TO created net over the existing rules. That just isn't fun.

And sorry I missed some of your post, DarthDiglar, I didn't see the strength 8 requirement for close combat. I thought it was all 5.

Either way, if someone told me I could only take 4 of any type of weapon, I just wouldn't go to the tournament, it would require too much of a change to my models and the game. It wouldn't be fun, IMO.

The weak dexes are just weak right now, the upper tier dexes, which is most of them, are competitive. The only books that truly struggle are Daemon Hunters and Crons. Every other book can hang in there. Tau in good hands can be good, but they straddle the fence. Wolves and IG are top dogs, but a good player can get around their strengths with clever play.

I'd rather see the TO simply award extra points to the weaker codices. So Tau get +5% more points, DA and BT get +10%, DH and Crons get +15%, etc.

There is simply something logically puzzling about thinking that restrictions on what you can take will increase diversification.

I dunno...

Orks seem somewhat screwed a lot by this...

No army may take more than 4 of any named weapon ( or model that can produce such a weapon) that can produce a str 5 or more shot (except Tau Fire Warriors and Pathfinders):

So loota squads are not allowed, unless you run a 5-man unit with a mek instead of a deffgun.

And rokkits and big shootas, pretty much the only weapon options in the majority of the codex, are limited to 4? I get 4 big shootas and 4 rokkits? That's not even weapons for three troop units. My boyz can't take flamers, meltas, plasma, etc - they get big shootas, or rokkits.

These are the same weapons on trukks, koptas, buggies...

no more than 5 of any named CC weapon of str 8 or higher

So, again, since the ork codex has a limited selection to begin with, they're basically unable to run their effective choice.

It must be nice to have a codex that has chainfists, powerfists AND thunderhammers - all basically functionally equivalent for most purposes. But when you get powerklaws or powerklaws, well, now what?


Any comp system, whether it be restrictive, theme-based, fluffy, for 'balance', or any other design, doesn't ever solve the problem that some codexes have deeper selections and better choices than others. All any of these systems do is change which set of codexes has the advantage at the time. What's more, because the strong codexes are also usually the deep codexes, they're usually able to withstand any set of restrictions better than another codex that might not have as many differently named things.

Well said Polonius, and RedBeard.

I think that is a simple and elegant solution. If you bring a low tier dex, you start out with 30 extra points, right off the bat.

That would encourage some good players to bring a low tier army as they would know they could lose a game, or win by a small margin and still win the tournament.

I like that actually.

Reecius wrote:Well said Polonius, and RedBeard.

I think that is a simple and elegant solution. If you bring a low tier dex, you start out with 30 extra points, right off the bat.

That would encourage some good players to bring a low tier army as they would know they could lose a game, or win by a small margin and still win the tournament.

I like that actually.

SURE!

but how do you agree on which codex is weakest and gets the most points? and can you give me an OBJECTIVE reason why they should receive more than any other?

Objective reason for DH being the weakest: They are demonhunters

Hard to refute!

That comp system doesn't really work, and here's why:

1500 BA

HQ- Libby

Elites-
Priest lightning clawx3

Troops-
5 Assault marines- Melta, Inf P,Pfist
Razorback- Assault cannon

5 Assault marines- Melta, Inf P,Pfist
Razorback- Assault cannon

5 Assault marines- Flamer, Inf P,Pfist
Razorback- Assault cannon

5 Assault marines- Flamer, Inf P, Pfist
Razorback- Assault cannon

Fast Attack-
Land Speeder- Multi-melta Heavy Flamer
Land Speeder- Multi-melta Heavy Flamer
Land Speeder- Multi-melta Heavy Flamer


Heavy-
Predator- Auto cannon, Sponson lazcannons.
Predator- Auto cannon, Sponson lazcannons.

So how has your comp system significantly made the BA codex weaker? It heavily gimps other armies whilt only slightly weakening armies that already are good. While you idea seems good at first thought upon further review it Heavily gimps mid-teir armies (Eldar, Tau, etc) but only slightly effects top teir armies (BA DUH!)

I don't think comp systems are the way forward. I believe this game is balanced (what little balance it has with 385793457 special rules) through the variety of missions. No one army is always stronger when the objectives constantly change. Unfortunately tournament players hate this, and thus we have this army list stagnation, it really frustrates me.

I went to play a game of 8th edition Fantasy the other day at GW and the kid I was playing said he didn't want the new terrain rules, because they were unfair. Pro-tip: I have to play with the blood forest eating my units too.

We have a comp system that I built for the FLGS where I work, and it seems to be a pretty big hit: composition figures into the overall score for a player in the tournament, with the same value of a "win" for one round: 3 points maximum. Half points are lost for:
-maxing out HQs (yes, this means daemons and space wolves can take up to 3 HQ w/out penalty)
-taking any special characters
-using minimum number of troops units
-duplicating elite units
-duplicating fast units
-duplicating heavy units

This duplicating of units doesn't mean running the same unit built the same way, it means using 2 units with the same name from the army book. Everyone at my tournament strives for full points because it's like a free win to add to your score in the tournament. Most people come in at about 2.5, but I have 4 players consistently getting perfect comp scores every tournament. It makes a difference, and I see plenty of balanced lists. This comp setup was made way before SW, BA and IG came out, and it may be time to update it...because those armies can get away with a lot more.

So what do you do if you want to play a SoB army? They only have 1 troop choice? Do they automatically end up losing points through no fault of the players? No offense but it hardly seems fair to me.

No, they can take any number of duplicate troops without penalty. It's just duplications of elites, heavies, and fasts that get penalized.

You want even?

Then the TO makes up two completely identical lists and you play with them.
1 HQ, 4 squad troops, 2 heavys and an elite.

You get a couple of wargear as in 1 wargear per troop, and 2 for the HQ. AND you can have one or two choices per list for vehicles.


NO Spam, NO BS Choices, NO Cheese

As for those chosen few freak armies... SOB, Grey Knights, etc.

Too bad, so sad. You don't have a current codex, then you can blow.

Then everyone plays with the same base no frills lists, plays the game completely the same, and no one gets to do anything else other then play RAW, in the perscribed generic style, with no individual playstyles.
And if you deveate, or try to chipmunk, you get a penalty, too.

Thats the only way you get away from Comp.

The worst thing about "Comp" is that it is in itself a penalizing system for thinking outside the box. If thats the case, then Tournies should be played with exactly the same, no chance of anything other then what is on the table. exactly the samefor everyone in game.

Seriously though?

Tournies ought to be bring your best game and play like you.... er, wrong game.

I forgot we were talking about GW tiddly winks, where everyone is a winner!!!

Why even have comp?

Play should be on winner and loser. Period. If you gain ground, route the opponent, or play a great game, why should you be chipmunked by a sore loser based on opinion? That hardly even seems realistic. You come to a tourny, bring your choice based on your pick, play your butt off, and even though you win the game, you get penalized. Right, real smart play there.

Penalized on opinion.

!@#$ Comp.

Not that I think it's a good system (runs into the same problem that the other does), but Troop duplication wasn't listed.

Really, the only good comp system is one that has a seperate category for each army. Yes, it's a lot of work.

Also, hard comp is the only really good one...Any point based tacked on the end is lacking in a couple ways (Doesn't prevent unfun matchups, and doesn't take strength of opposition into account).

timetowaste85 wrote:-maxing out HQs (yes, this means daemons and space wolves can take up to 3 HQ w/out penalty)
-taking any special characters
-using minimum number of troops units
-duplicating elite units
-duplicating fast units
-duplicating heavy units

In the current FOC-based system, if one is going to score Comp in favor of variety, then this is the way Comp should be scored - against the FOC, not against points, much less weapon strength.

Sure, some armies have better Elite, others better Heavy. Overall, this should balance out, because they're all non-Troops.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:-maxing out HQs (yes, this means daemons and space wolves can take up to 3 HQ w/out penalty)
-taking any special characters
-using minimum number of troops units
-duplicating elite units
-duplicating fast units
-duplicating heavy units

In the current FOC-based system, if one is going to score Comp in favor of variety, then this is the way Comp should be scored - against the FOC, not against points, much less weapon strength.

Sure, some armies have better Elite, others better Heavy. Overall, this should balance out, because they're all non-Troops.

Agreed. Also, the only armies that really get a leg-up over others are those with strong troops choices ('Nids, Gaurd, etc.)