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.

Cross-posted from...lots of places.

So another forum I'm on got into another "Is Warhammer balanced?". I decided to break out the statistics, and find out. Crunching the numbers from the latest 'Throne of Skulls' tournament, it turns out that 40K is pretty balanced, and doesn't so much have a codex creep problem, while Fantasy has a bit of both right now.

The full analysis is here: http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/is-warhammer-balanced/

I shall have a proper squizz at that tomorrow when I'm less tired...

Otherwise good show there young man.

In other words, this is just half the picture. The author's mention of better players being attracted to better performing armies still needs to be tested more thoroughly.

BEtter performing armies and better players....arguable.

BUT, better performing *lists* and power gamers...possibly closer.

Please note I am not name slinging here. Not every 'beardy' list is run by a power gamer, and I am not insinuating all successful player are de facto powergamers.

Just get that sorted now, avoids arguments later.