A look into balance issues of the Top tier armies vs the rock bottom

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.

**Gene St. Ealer**

Okay, that's fair. Looking back at your post, that's how you positioned it there too, my bad.

**Daedalus81**

Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Okay, that's fair. Looking back at your post, that's how you positioned it there too, my bad.

No stress - I dump a lot of info and I don't always do a good job explaining my thoughts.

For me points should be a fine razor rather than a cudgel that kind of smashes things here and there. GW obviously struggles to get that touch right and new books have a 50/50 of throwing efforts right out the window.

**Spoletta**

It is hard to judge the standings in the meta when there are 2 factions that are both very popular and very effective.

The win rate of factions stops being a meter of how good that faction is in general, and starts becoming a meter of how good they are into those 2 factions.

Sisters for example even post nerfs are a quite good dex, but since they suck terribly into those 2, they have taken a huge blow to their standing.

**Tyel**

Spoletta wrote:
It is hard to judge the standings in the meta when there are 2 factions that are both very popular and very effective.

The win rate of factions stops being a meter of how good that faction is in general, and starts becoming a meter of how good they are into those 2 factions.

Sisters for example even post nerfs are a quite good dex, but since they suck terribly into those 2, they have taken a huge blow to their standing.

This is true - but equally I feel its rare for the "top factions" to ever be unpopular. Harlequins in early 9th is probably the only one.

I also feel Daed's point that balance isn't that bad (to a degree anyway) if you take out the top is... more or less always the case.

**Nomeny**

So what if it was all balanced, basically a coin flip?

**ERJAK**

Nomeny wrote:
So what if it was all balanced, basically a coin flip?

Ideally it'd be player skill at that point.

**EviscerationPlague**

ERJAK wrote:
Nomeny wrote:
So what if it was all balanced, basically a coin flip?

Ideally it'd be player skill at that point.

Ideally, the goal should be one army's TAC list shouldn't be significantly worse than another army's TAC list. At that point list building is STILL a factor (if you're just bringing flamers and nothing else, whelp your own fault) and you can skew accordingly to throw people off.

In these discussions some people bring up Knights, in which case I say they're just deflecting. Knights should be the last codex released by that point.

**ERJAK**

Tyel wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
It is hard to judge the standings in the meta when there are 2 factions that are both very popular and very effective.

The win rate of factions stops being a meter of how good that faction is in general, and starts becoming a meter of how good they are into those 2 factions.

Sisters for example even post nerfs are a quite good dex, but since they suck terribly into those 2, they have taken a huge blow to their standing.

This is true - but equally I feel its rare for the "top factions" to ever be unpopular. Harlequins in early 9th is probably the only one.

I also feel Daed's point that balance isn't that bad (to a degree anyway) if you take out the top is... more or less always the case.

Is it though? Interfactional balance still isn't great even if you were to straight up ban Custodes or Tau. Crusher stampede has been bowled out by both army's but is still there and multiple astartes factions have abysmal performance relative to the rest of the field. Sisters of Battle, who in general have a pretty balanced winrate, have absolutely murderous hard counters now as a result of the 4 layers of nerfs they took.

So take out Tau and Custodes and you still have 2 clearly best factions (admittedly much more 'fair' than Custodes or Tau are) and multiple factions that are in the 30s in terms of winrates. Combine that with the frankly atrocious internal balances most codexes have creating incredibly lopsided matchups even within factions that are ostensibly balanced (i.e. Sisters of Battle are still winning 40-50% of games, but they automatically lose against several lists because they have non-existent long range interaction) and you end up with a deeply broken metagame.

So we have obviously broken codexes, obviously terrible codexes, and painfully lopsided codexes all contributing to the problem and all needing to be adjusted in very significant ways. In response, GW has so far...nerfed several midtier armies and given Custodes completely baffling points drops.

**Karol**

Well some of the problems come from mid edition design philosophy changes that GW seems to like to do. You can't design book after book, and even market codex with you can mix different subfaction of the faction. To then revert it. Specially when focusing on those interactions and mix of them, ment you spent less time designing the rules for units , specially when played in a non mixed army.

**ccs**

ERJAK wrote:
(i.e. Sisters of Battle are still winning 40-50% of games, but they automatically lose against several lists because they have non-existent long range interaction) and you end up with a deeply broken metagame.

They don't auto-lose. Their games simply become much harder because their players haven't solved the puzzle/aren't willing to make use of all the tools in the game/refuse to occasionally sacrifice their special rules.

**Spoletta**

^ This.

No-LoS shooting counters only one of the many sister builds. The sister dex is one of the best of this edition and has a really good internal balance. You can build a huge number of different lists and they are all similarly efficient.

Losing mixed subfactions was a nice thing to happen, since it had immobilized it into one easy solution. Now apart from some overcosted vehicles, you can get really creative with the sister range.

**Insectum7**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Never Attribute Malice when Incompetence and ignorance is possible.
Bingo. Why intentionally unbalance things when they can simply not put effort into balancing them in the first place?

There's a third option: Incompetent malice.

**Jarms48**

Poly Ranger wrote:
I personally believe the balance in 40k at the moment is at its worst since the release of the scat-bike 7th ed Eldar dex and all the special detachment craziness that followed after.
The fact that some are newer dexes compared to older dexes should not be as much of a factor as it currently is since GW are supposed to be conducting points adjustments twice every year. This seems pointless (pun unintended) if GW are barely going to adjust the points for dexes that are severely lacking.
I’ve decided to do a comparison between some of the units in the dex at the absolute bottom of the pecking order, Astra Militarum, and the two at the top currently, Custodes and Tau, to demonstrate the absolute gulf in balance. This doesn’t take into account the greater ability to buff stronger units for the more recent dexes or the improved strength of their stratagems in comparison to older dexes, just a straight up comparison (although if we take buffing into account, it will almost certainly benefit the Tau and Custodes more). I have intentionally not picked the absolute top tier units from Custodes and Tau such as Bikes and Suits to use in the comparisons but instead units that are as similar as possible, I have however used Scions, Infantry and Bullgryns which are three of the better Guard units (after TCs and Manticores). I used a Basic Russ rather than a TC since it was more of a direct comparison with the Hammerhead (same reason why it is a Vanquisher).

1) Yarrick vs Shield Captain in Allarus Terminator Armour 105pts vs 115pts

-Same M, BS and WS (although Yarrick has -1 to hit in assault).
-Both have reroll 1’s to hit aura.
-Both have 4++
-Shield Captain has +2S, +1T, +4W, +4A (with free Misericordia), +2Ld, +2Save
-Shield Captain has 24” RF1 4/1/2 and 18” AD3 5/3/1 blast vs Yarrick’s 24” RF2 4/0/1 for shooting
-Yarrick has a 3+++ on final wound and Summary Execution rule
-Shield Captain is only 10pts more

2) Leman Russ Vanquisher with Heavy Bolter and Heavy Bolter sponsoons vs Hammerhead Gunship with Accelerator Burst Cannons 175pts vs 155pts

-Hammerhead has +2M, +2W
-Leman Russ has +1T, +1Save
-Hammerhead has 18” A16 6/1/1 and 72” H1 14/6/D3+6 no invuln + 3 mortal wounds vs 36” H9 5/1/2 and H1 (2 when moving half) 8/-3/d6 roll 2 dice discard lowest
-Hammerhead can reroll a hit when shooting and also has fly
-Hammerhead is 20pts cheaper

3) Ogryns vs Krootox 25pts vs 25pts

-Krootox has +1M, +1S, +1W, +1A
-Ogryn has +2Ld (not very relevant on small units) and +1Save
-Krootox has -2ap and 2D in assault compared to Ogryns -1ap and 1D
-Orgryn has 18” A3 5/0/1 vs Krootox 48”H2 7/1/2
-Krootox has 7” pregame move
-Krootox take no slot if Kroot taken
-Tau Auxiliary can benefit from traits under one sept unlike Guard Auxiliaries.

4) Scout Sentinel with Autocannon vs Krootox 45pts vs 25pts

-Krootox has +1WS, +1S, +3A
-Sentinel has +2M, +2W, +2Save
-Krootox have 4 6/2/2 attacks vs 1 5/0/1 attacks
-Autocannon and Kroot Gun exactly the same
-Both have pregame move
-Sentinel is almost double the cost

5) Scions vs Vespid Stingwings 9pts vs 12pts

-Vespids have +8M, +1S, +1T, +1Ld
-Scions have +1BS
-Both have DS
-Vespids have -1ap in assault
-Vespids have 18” A2 5/3/2 vs 18” RF1 3/2/1
-Scions have Ob Sec and can take special weapons (which they obviously pay for making them significantly more than a Vespid)
-Vespids are 3 pts more

6) Guard Infantry vs Kroot 5.5pts vs 6pts

-Kroot have +1M, +1WS, +1S, +1A
-Guard have +1Ld, +1save
-Kroot have -1ap in assault
-Kroot have 24” RF1 4/0/1 vs 24” RF1 3/0/1
-Kroot have a 7” pregame move, an extra save in cover, a better version of the frag grenade and make other Kroot units slotless.
-Guard can take specials and heavy weapons.
-Kroot cost 0.5pts more than an Infantry Squad member.

7) Bullgryns with Brute Shields and Maul vs Custodian Guard with sentinel spears 35pts vs 45pts
-Custodian Guard have +1WS, +2BS, +1A (with Misercondria) +4Ld, +2save
-Both have 4++
-Custodians hit with 7/3/2 in assault vs 7/1/2
-Bullgryns with Maul don’t have shooting, Custodians have 24” RF1 4/1/2
-Custodians have Ob Sec
-Custodians are only 10pts more

What are your thoughts seeing these discrepancies? Have GW used the points adjustments effectively in attempting to balance the game as much as possible?

Guard aren't a good comparison. You should try comparing the early 9th edition codexes against the latest 9th edition ones. Like say Tau vs Necrons.

Everyone knows Guard are in a rough spot now. After the Eldar codex drops they will be the oldest codex still in play. Nids are also 8th edition but with all the buffs they had recently left them very competitive still.

**Tyel**

ERJAK wrote:
Is it though? Interfactional balance still isn't great even if you were to straight up ban Custodes or Tau. Crusher stampede has been bowled out by both army's but is still there and multiple astartes factions have abysmal performance relative to the rest of the field. Sisters of Battle, who in general have a pretty balanced winrate, have absolutely murderous hard counters now as a result of the 4 layers of nerfs they took.

This is fair - and I think Crusher Stampede - and probably Tyranids more generally - should also be nerfed. (I'd probably throw yet another pass over DE, pushing wracks to 9 and say 2 more points per model in a Court of the Archon - but this might be vindictive rather than strictly necessary).

On Astartes faction win rate though - I think that's very difficult to call. Old argument really but I don't think the various chapters are legitimate factions in their own right. If you play Marines you should just play the one with the best rules - as everyone else does. So people people playing the bad Marine factions are probably playing generally for reasons other than trying to win. So its not really surprising their win rates are lower.

Tend to agree hard counters are bad in 40k. They may help mix up a tournament meta (and push factions towards a 50% over all win rate) - but its no fun to show up at a table and just know you are screwed barring a real turn up in the dice. Don't really know Sisters well enough to comment on them specifically though.

**Poly Ranger**

Jarms48 - I'm glad you've brought it back to the direct unit comparisons which are pretty much impossible to argue against when you see them. I don't think I've seen one comment yet addressing the comparisons.
However as to your point about not picking Guard, the entire reason I'm picking Guard is to compare the top and bottom. A games company that releases bi-annual points adjustments has a very real opportunity to ensure that a rules set released 4 years ago is balanced in comparison, (at least a hell of a lot more than it is now) compared to one just recently released. And they aren't doing that despite the fact that they have literally put in place the mechanisms which allow them to do so.

Also, Guard do exist. So using them is completely valid when discussing the balance of the game.

If you want a more recent comparison, compare a Krootox to an Intercessor for what it gets for its points. Not exactly units that are direct comparisons, but still... (and bear in mind whilst making that comparison that a Krootox isn't exactly the top of the Tau power list)

**Karol**

It is bad argument though. Makes as much sense as telling an eldar player that he should play the good , at given time, eldar. Or telling the IG player he just should play them as GSC or SoB.

Different marines factions are both historically and rules wise separate factions. They have separate books, and those that don't have them would wish to have one. Plus the data we have is for tournaments, and in tournaments people tend to play the things which are better. Also some marine factions are so bad that people just don't bring them to events. I don't think there is much data on how good CF or IF are doing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
^ This.

No-LoS shooting counters only one of the many sister builds. The sister dex is one of the best of this edition and has a really good internal balance. You can build a huge number of different lists and they are all similarly efficient.

Losing mixed subfactions was a nice thing to happen, since it had immobilized it into one easy solution. Now apart from some overcosted vehicles, you can get really creative with the sister range.

Which is great I suppose if you play sister mirrors a lot. But in general sister power came from the fact that your run the shoty convent for shoty stuff and melee convent for the melee stuff. Now you can't do that and with half the list working, SoB are unable to deal with lists which are good right now. And the multiple nerfs didn't help either. Oddly enough they got hit harder then DE did, as if someone at the studios thought that post the last batch of nerfs DEs were good the way they are.
And if that kind of thinking is prelevant, why shouldn't some custodes think that their rules are okey and should stay the way they are for a few months?

**Jarms48**

Poly Ranger wrote:
Also, Guard do exist. So using them is completely valid when discussing the balance of the game

I completely agree. I've play Imperial Guard for over 20 years. I've written documents, literally, about how to balance them over 9th edition. I even wrote up my own Quick Fix with some point adjustments, Erratas, and FAQ's. I limited myself to 5 pages.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ecPe8-VzGW9L4uP_1VUVv_Tlpp_M2imgmtpVLd4_8Ng/edit?usp=sharing

**Dysartes**

Daedalus81 wrote:
The other end of that is AM absolutely crushes anything Chaos, because of the anti-faction rules - they're 60% versus Thousand Sons, 58% v CK, and 50% vs Chaos/HA.

Interesting that "anything Chaos" is missing two 'dexes at this point, and that's before we get to the few god-specific forces.

How was the AM performance vs. Daemons and Death Guard, Daed?

**Jidmah**

Pure DG are pretty much bottom of the barrel right now, thanks to GW nerfing them while they were struggling.

**Dolnikan**

Jidmah wrote:
Pure DG are pretty much bottom of the barrel right now, thanks to GW nerfing them while they were struggling.

And yet, they still do worse than Guard. The sheer difference in power that we currently see in the game is just stunning.

**Dysartes**

Dolnikan wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Pure DG are pretty much bottom of the barrel right now, thanks to GW nerfing them while they were struggling.

And yet, they still do worse than Guard. The sheer difference in power that we currently see in the game is just stunning.

Going by Daed's data, DG (45% WR) and Daemons (49% WR) were out-performing the Guard (41%) - see the post with two spoilered tables on the previous page.

Neither DG or the Guard are doing well there, while Daemons are around the acceptable mark.

However, the statement being challenged is that the Guard "absolutely crushes anything Chaos", when two of the major Chaos factions weren't included as evidence.

Are they crushing the DG or Daemons? I have no idea, but it's something I'm intrigued to see whether holds true.