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.

This is a part 1 of 3 in a series of posts I'll be making over the next week. Stay tuned for more in constructing a balanced list, and how to play it.

What is a balanced army?

I hear that question bandied around in the back room of the FLGS quite often, but everyone has their own view of what a "balanced" army is. The question in 40k actually does have an answer, whether people want to accept it or reject it. So I'll answer the question. A balanced army is one that is capable of playing competitively in all 3 phases of the game.

This brings a new question to the table, what does it mean to play competitively in all 3 phases of the game? This is the real question that needs to be asked and answered. The meaning of playing in all 3 phases of the game isn't easy, and requires some clarification on several points.

Playing in the Movement phase

To play in the movement phase we need to look at the maximum movement distance of several units over 6 turns. The maximum movement of an infantry squad is 36" base, and 6-36" base with running. That means you end up moving between 42" and 72", and that's if you concentrate on nothing but moving and running. The problem with that assumption is that it is strictly moving which means 2 things, first is that you are unable to fire all you're weapons to full effect which means that suddenly you've removed yourself from shooting competitively. Doing this for a turn or two is okay, but you can't afford to have a unit that is unable to shoot to full effect every turn of the game. How do we counter the slow movement speeds? There are 2 choices, use transports that allow you to quickly eat up ground and put yourself in a position to fire competitively for more turns. The other choice is to take units that have a higher that average movement speed. This includes Blood Angels Assault Marines, Space Marine Bikers, Hormagaunts that run, and Eldar Guardian Jetbikes to name a few.

The question now comes down to, Why do I want to be able to move faster than normal? The answer to that is threefold. First, it allows you to chose the battles you want to fight. This means that you must think about the positioning of your units. Controlling where you position your units leads into the second reason, the proper application of force where it's needed. What the proper application of force means, is that you will at all times have the proper resources to deal with what you need to deal with. Having a BA assault squad with 2 meltaguns shooting at a rhino is good, but having 2 BA assault squads in position to do the same is better. You have double the chance to destroy the vehicle, and you are in a better position to deal telling damage in the assault phase with 20 assault marines compared to 10 that got lucky. The third reason for above average speed is to capitalize on advantages that may come up. If you are able to deny your opponent a shot at your unit, you've suddenly taken away one of their advantages. This is the biggest concept of above average movement, put yourself into a position to damage your opponent where they have limited retaliation. The game is as much about denying your opponent as it is giving advantage to yourself.


The Shooting Phase

So we see that movement is more than just the black and white of moving on foot, with jump packs, or mounted in rhinos as quickly towards your opponent as possible. What does it mean to play competitively in the shooting phase? To shoot competitively you have to be able to deal damage to any target you shoot at to full effect. Whether it is shooting at vehicles or units, your firepower must be effective against it if you are firing to full effect. What this means is if you dedicate yourself to shooting at something, maximize your chances of dealing telling damage.

If a landspeeder is moving 12" and has a typhoon missile launcher, you can fire to full effect in anti tank and anti unit. By firing the krak missiles you are unable to use the heavy bolter, which means you fired to full effect. The same holds true if you fire the heavy bolters and the frag missiles. This is an example of shooting competitively. A space marine predator with autocannon and 2 heavy bolters doesn't move. It should not be shooting at a chimera, because not all its weapons can deal damage. It could fire at a rhino however because the heavy bolters can deal damage to them. It would be best however to fire at a unit, where it's weapons can fire to full effect. These are an example of firing competitively. A another example is a space marine tactical squad with a meltagun, multi-melta, and combi-melta shooting out of a rhino you are a potent antitank weapon. If you want to shoot at a squad of troops, disembark and fire all your weapons to deal maximum damage. What's the best thing if you have 2 tactical squads in rhinos 12" from a chimera full of melta vets? Leave one of your squads in the rhino and move 6" closer to get meltagun range, and disembark one from the other rhino to move closer on foot. This maximizes your shooting potential, you have 2 meltagun shots to destroy the chimera from your rhino, and if you are unable to gun them down with that, you have 2 more melta in a position to destroy the vehicle, and mop up the survivors. The reason you bring one out of the rhino on foot is so that if the squad kills it, you can shoot or assault the survivors. The final piece of this, is that regardless of anything is that the Rhino moves into a position to block the majority of enemy retaliatory fire into the squad. That leads into the final lesson of this article, assaulting competitively.


The Assault Phase

So we've covered how to move and shoot competitively. The final thing is assaulting competitively. Competitive assaulting means having the ability to put out wounds that can ignore armour saves in some way shape or form, or having the ability to put out 30+ attacks that don't ignore armour saves when you are charged. The one pitfall to avoid however is you do not want your power weapons spread out amongst a number of squads. You want to concentrate them in one or (more preferably) two squads. If you are only going to run one squad, make sure it can take a beating. The reason you want a squad that can take the attacks if you are running a single squad is that it forces your opponent to pour a great amount of attacks (shooting or assault) to neutralize them. If your squad is not capable of taking a beating, run two of them to prevent the loss of one from hampering your overall effectiveness. All this does not mean run one super powerful unit (aka death star unit) that can throw out a lot of power weapon attacks. If you do however choose to run one close combat unit, don't be afraid to spend enough points to make them survivable. A good example of this is a Space Marine biker command squad. If you spent the points to give them power weapons, spend the points to give them storm shields to make them more survivable.

So someone asked me why I chose the number 30+ attacks when you get charged? The way that weapon skill works in 5th edition. On average with 30 attacks, you will inflict 7 wounds or 5 wounds with 20 attacks (Figuring MEQ attacking and defending, with GEQ you'll obviously kill more, 13 with 30 attacks 8 with 20). So 10 extra attacks to inflict 2 extra wounds on a MEQ squad, which means we average another kill. This means that a unit of assault marines is not a threat in the assault phase, but a squad of Khorne Berzerkers is. Inflicting 2 wounds (that are unsaved) is the key number to give the opposing squad enough of a leadership penalty to make them break more often. Remember the purpose of the assault phase isn't just to kill your opponents, it's as much to tie them up. That's why a tactical squad is better off shooting to full effect and letting their opponents assault. They may get extra attacks, but they have lowered the total amount by killing models in shooting so it balances out.


We've covered what it means to play competitively in each phase of the game. That's not all there is to playing a balanced list. That also does not meant that just because you can put out a couple of units that focus on different aspects that you are playing a balanced list. The final aspect of creating a balanced list, every unit must be able to do 2 of the 3 things. That means that a space marine tactical squad in a rhino is a balanced choice, it can move faster that average and shoot. A squad of Khorne berzerkers in a rhino is a balanced choice, it has movement and assault. A squad of dark eldar warriors on foot is not a balanced choice.


There is a fourth part to playing a balanced list, but it is not done in any of the phases. Synergy is the final point. What is synergy? The ability for the pieces to work together and all the whole be greater than the sum of the parts. How do we achieve synergy? Don't simply go willy-nilly on selecting units that are good at what they do. A Rifleman dread is good at shooting up transports, and works good with units that can shoot up the units that come out such as a Dakka predator. That is an example of synergy. Another example of synergy that I already gave was the two tactical squads in rhinos, how are they most effective. Building something with synergy increases the damage potential. Things in game working in synergy are what truly brings out the power of a list, not simply putting out units that people talk about being powerful or good units. You can't simply put a squad of 10 Sternguard veterans in a rhino and expect them to make their points back. They must work in concert with other parts of the list. Synergy is not figured only in the list creation phase. It is an important part of every phase to multiply the effects of units. Using tank busters to kill a transport then gunning down the occupants is synergy during the game. All this may seem like common sense, but too many times I see people making mistakes and not building a list with synergy (instead opting for the route of mixing weapon types in a squad) and trying to force bad synergy during the game. An example of this is destroying a transport then shooting a unit with 2 or more anti-tank weapons into that disembarked unit. Or trying to shoot a dakka predator at a rhino hoping to destroy it, then follow up with a unit of lascannon devastators this is not synergy. Firing lascannon devastators first, then firing the predator is synergy.



So when you create a list balance is important. I will close by saying that it is important to realize that if you only focus on 2 of the 3, losing one of the two will leave you operating at 50% efficiency, while in a balanced list losing 1 of 3 still leaves you working at 67% capacity. This is why creating a list that functions in all 3 phases of the game is more dangerous than a list that functions in 2 of 3. So remember, play a smart game and make sure each of your units can function in 2 of the 3 phases rather than one phase.

Good post, will be useful for people entering the hobby who need a heads-up to the metagame. You didn't address the ideas of synergy or redundancy very much, which are core aspects to a good and balanced list, but the concept of playing in all three phases is important.

Remember that you can effectively play well in the assault phase by avoiding it. This is true for armies like Tau, who use mobile gun platforms to hit and run, avoiding assault and denying the opponent's assault. On that token, a CC army with high movement can play well in the shooting phase by denying the opponent's shooting, tying them in CC or denying targets by being tied in CC.

Movement is the name of the game now, with transports taking a massive dominance in the game, and bike armies popping up everywhere. Manipulating your opponent through your own movement, using cover, and bringing your guns to bear with good positioning, is where the majority of the skill in this game is found.

I only wanted to touch on Synergy in this post. I'm going to be going more in depth with synergy and redundancy in the next 2 posts. I guess I forgot to mention this is going to be a 3 part "article over the next week. Additionally playing well in the movement phase is what makes it so that tau avoid combat. For a true balanced list you have to take some kind of close combat unit, but for tau they only have Kroot which aren't a truly CC oriented squad, they're a take cover shooting squad that can perform decent in close combat.

Lone Dragoon wrote:
A balanced army is one that is capable of playing competitively in all 3 phases of the game.

Lone Dragoon wrote:
This is why creating a list that functions in all 3 phases of the game is more dangerous than a list that functions in 2 of 3.

I have a bit of an issue with your premise and conclusion. They seem to be a bit Space-Marine-centric. There are other armies where trying to build to 'compete' in each of those phases will clearly lead to a sub-par list.

My definition of a balanced army is one that has the capacity to deal with any army it may come up against. It's one that doesn't bet everything on the rock-paper-scissors meta-game.

E.g. An IG army that slaughters any army that has to move across the whole board isn't balanced if it can't also deal with an outflanking army. If the player invests some of his points away from just having more Leman Russes/Hydras/whathaveyou and instead gets some infantry squads whose job is to bubble wrap or speed-bump those outflankers, then it is probably balanced in a way that is appropriate for Imperial Guard.

You do need to play to your strengths though, and the way to play the assault phase well for Tau and shooty lists is to not be in assault! This means not only avoiding assault, but also eliminating enemy assault units.

I think I have some objections to this: "A balanced army is one that is capable of playing competitively in all 3 phases of the game. ". The OP further states that "That also does not meant that just because you can put out a couple of units that focus on different aspects that you are playing a balanced list. The final aspect of creating a balanced list, every unit must be able to do 2 of the 3 things.".

So basically that narrows it down to just a few "balanced" units in the entire game.

My self being primariiy an imperial guard player can only say that this is exactly against what makes an imperial guard army competitive. Redundancy and specialization are the two key words there.

I do however think that an IG list can be balanced if it is designed in a way to fight competitevly against all types of armies.

While a good article, as someone mentioned its a very space marine centric idea, although I can see it used also in say Tyranid lists. IG, however, as noted deal with redundency and specialization.

Sisters of battle, also go for redundency- and they cant really compete in the world of assulat phase- doesnt mean they cant beat upa tactical squad, but they do not have anything in the league of dedicated assualt type squads.

Hell tau are even worse off then sisters in the assualt phase, and are going to be more focused on movement and shooting....

Mizeran wrote:I think I have some objections to this: "A balanced army is one that is capable of playing competitively in all 3 phases of the game. ". The OP further states that "That also does not meant that just because you can put out a couple of units that focus on different aspects that you are playing a balanced list. The final aspect of creating a balanced list, every unit must be able to do 2 of the 3 things.".

So basically that narrows it down to just a few "balanced" units in the entire game.

My self being primariiy an imperial guard player can only say that this is exactly against what makes an imperial guard army competitive. Redundancy and specialization are the two key words there.

I do however think that an IG list can be balanced if it is designed in a way to fight competitevly against all types of armies.

Actually almost every unit in the game has the ability to play competitively in 2 of the 3 phases. The only ones off the top of my head I can think of that don't are chaos spawn, necron flayed ones (remember warriors have movement covered by porting through a monolith), and tau ethereals (with no upgraded firewarrior squad). In the games you play of imperial guard, what happens if your opponent comes in with two squads capable of taking out multiple transports (or Leman Russes) in assault? They start to fold without something that can at least deal with that squad. It's not by pure dumb luck that the game designers put in the ability to make power blobs, they were put in to give the short on CC guard something that can operate competitively in assault. Even a squad of TH/SS terminators gets stopped in its tracks giving you a couple turns to use your mobility to get away and gun them down. Does this mean I'm saying every list should have them? No, but to make something truly all comers or balanced they have a place in the list. Running a straight up gun line in chimeras isn't as potent as everyone makes it (I do play one, and it is a good list) but unless you have a way of preventing your opponent from smashing it in the assault phase, you're going to spend half the game trying to move 12" with the vehicles and unable to fire which plays to another army's advantage.

I think your description of the phases is good and take credits for that! I also think you have many good points players should think about. But when it comes to balance for me it more comes down to handling all types of list you can meet in a competitive way. You are saying that balance is achived by picking units that are good in several different phases and I'm not so sure. Balance for me is more about not taking only anti-tank weapons or anti-horde or to go a type of build that is effective against some and loses to others.. in other words.. turns the game into rock paper scissors.

As an example, if i meet a lot of space marines I might be tempted to go for a lot of plasmaguns in my guard list. But if I face a green tide those are not really worth their points. Instead, a balanced list for me would include some units with plasma and some others that can tackle hordes. Then one gradually battles other lists and you see what your list loses to and adapts it. Eventually it might lead to a balanced list in ones own meta-game.

Some people see balance also as what types of choices are made. Such as not take only chimeras and veterans but have a balance in the selection with some infantry, some heavy support and so on (more what is referred to as hybrid lists here).

To answer your question, if somethign comes in that can kill my tanks in close combat I usually respond by charging it with my infantry blob to buy time, move a way my tanks while fireing at what I can and then kill the assaulting squads after my infantry dies. So, yes I might have a balance there but unless I run power-blobs I dont really expect my counter-charge to do anything else than buy me time to blast them. As a side note I hate playing full mech so I struggle on with my hybrid lists.

Mizeran I think you hit on one of the key issues I'm trying to get at in this series of articles.

You're playing a hybrid guard list, you aren't running a purely mechanized list for guard. You are bringing infantry blobs (even if not necessarily power blobs) that buy you time. You are bringing an assault element to a list that by common convention shouldn't have one, and thus have a balanced list that can hold up a squad that would otherwise munch your tanks. By spending 365 points to make blob squad of 3 infantry units with a commissar attached and having power weapons plenty of people won't see that as good points investment. This includes giving the command squad 4 melta and a chimera.

Where as I look at it thus, a squad of melta vets in a chimera runs 155 points base. The vets having a higher BS is offset by the extra meltagun in the unit, so you are getting the same thing from inside a chimera, 2 melta hits. Outside of the chimera you lose ablative wounds, but 5 guardsmen isn't a big thing for ablative wounds. By comparison between the two they're equal inside a chimera so worth the 155 points from melta vets. That means for 210 points you are buying 12 power weapon attacks, 27 regular attacks, and the stubborn rule (and rerollable morale checks) for the blob squad which is a good deal, and prevents your opponent from knocking out 2 chimeras a turn with attacks from something like TH/SS terminators. That flexibility serves you against a wider array of opponents then spending 310 points to get two meltavet squads in chimeras.

This theory basically means that neither tau nor demons can build balanced lists.

If we take it as fact that a balanced list must be good at both assault AND shooting in order to be balanced, then I question what the point of being balanced is.

Certainly, a "balanced" list, by this definition is not the "best" list, because the best lists tend to be horribly "unbalanced" (I mean, look at a leafblower, or razorspam...)

Ailaros wrote:This theory basically means that neither tau nor demons can build balanced lists.

If we take it as fact that a balanced list must be good at both assault AND shooting in order to be balanced, then I question what the point of being balanced is.

Certainly, a "balanced" list, by this definition is not the "best" list, because the best lists tend to be horribly "unbalanced" (I mean, look at a leafblower, or razorspam...)

As I said, Kroot are not an assault threat with 10 models, which means you don't send them out to kill enemy models. They are however a close combat unit that can slow down enemies from getting at your important pieces buying them valuable time to reposition using the above average movement to get away. Hopefully you'll see more in depth the interdependency of synergy with balanced construction in the next article I'll be putting up later tonight or tomorrow, and how even those armies can achieve balance.

An army doesn't have to be "good" at shooting to be able to play in the shooting phase, it just has to be able to deal with all the threats that can pop up. Take orks for example, they suck at shooting, but by putting enough guns out there they are able to still deal enough damage to make a balanced list. The other one is in a daemon army I'd consider 3 soul grinders enough shooting for competitive shooting, they don't have to be good at it, they just need to be able to deal with anti vehicle (Tongue and Phlegm) or anti-infantry (Harvester, Phlegm, Vomit) and be able to allocate their resources available to do just that. Running Soul grinders with the Phlegm upgrade makes them able to deal damage to vehicles considering they can use that and CC, and it makes them capable of dealing with infantry by using the Phlegm (or vomit) and the harvester.

I think it's more that a list must be good at Assault and Shooting, or Assault & Movement, or Shooting & Movement, not just Assault and Shooting.

So Tau could be balanced,, with their tanks and transports, and their various hit-and-run abilities, etc, etc.

Demons, well, I don't know much about daemons. But the Deep strike itself, as well as their Monstrous Creatures, should give them decent Movement and Assault capabilities.

Interesting read and I see some foundations for sage advice in here, but I suspect you may need to expand each section to more than 2 paragraphs. Surely there's more meat to each phase than just two!

Interesting thoughts. I give you credit for putting your opinions out there and opening yourself up to the criticism that was sure to follow such a post.

These are obviously abridged thoughts as trying to put all the pertinent info into the post would have created a wall of text that most of ADD internet gaming community would not have had the patience to read.

I agree with many of the points you have made. I however think you are hitting more on efficiency than "balance". I am sure that you, like myself are guilty of creating an army specifically designed to beat a singular opponent. Are these armies balanced? Most likely not, in fact in my case i would say definitely not, they are however points " efficient".

Each army has a particular set of strengths and weaknesses. I think a truly balanced army plays to those strengths while masking their weaknesses. This is where i think your idea of synergy comes in. Besides whether or not most of us want to admit it, those of us that play competitively use the principles that you have outline when making our lists.

I look forward to reading parts 2 and 3 to see how you tie these ideas up.

I've been working hard to produce the 3rd part which is the part that is going to tie all this together. So here's the second part of it, feel free to read and hopefully enjoy and perhaps see where I'm going with the final portion. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/356762.page