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.

Well we can all argue about which army is actually the strongest or weakest but surely everyone recognises there are differences in strength. Does anyone claim all the codexes are exactly balanced?

A good player with a good codex has an advantage over a bad player with the same codex.

A good player with a weak codex can often beat a bad player with a strong codex. Lists don't play themselves.

This graph is a good general indicator.

As you can see, Necrons are in practice solidly average, and all armies are more balanced than perhaps word-on-the-street might make you believe. Deamonhunters perform very badly and Orkz iz made fer fightin' an' winnin'. But the most important information is that the spread across all armies is only 22% or so, if my back-of-the-envelope maths is right. Which is pretty damned close.

that said, this graph is from February '09, two months before the new Guard Codex.



(http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/is-warhammer-balanced/)

I think I'm going to go with the Airbourne IG army with some ground support.

A marine army painted and converted to the nines is mighty pricey.