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.

A few of us are looking to take the dark path back to Warhammer via Horus Heresy. The 30k units remind us of old Adeptus Titanicus albeit at a very different scale. We're not looking to go crazy competitive and we're all playing 30k so no funky crossovers as of yet, and obviously everyone works off the same main list more or less. We're concerned about the actual Legion and Mechanicum rules. Do any Legion rules cause any balance issues by being particularly overpowered versus their Astartes brethren?

Across the whole, there isn't really that much difference between each of the legions. Because you have the same base units for each armour. Any tricks that you pull can be used by your opponent. Mechanicum are a different bunch entirely and can be a real pain in the power armour, especially with those monstrous creature troops. But then you realise that you can bring a ten man missile launcher squad for 285 points and you can laugh as you wipe them off the board.

Some legions do have better rules than others, but if you use their rite of war then you start to see the differences between each one. But in the long run, the 30k armies are pretty balanced, especially against each other.

 welshhoppo wrote:
But in the long run, the 30k armies are pretty balanced, especially against each other.

Keep seeing people say this. It just makes me think (even more so) that GW have a chance here to focus on a more epic, balanced version of the game we are already interested in.

 Aims wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
But in the long run, the 30k armies are pretty balanced, especially against each other.

Keep seeing people say this. It just makes me think (even more so) that GW have a chance here to focus on a more epic, balanced version of the game we are already interested in.

Well to be fair, when you only have one army to choose from, its pretty hard to be unbalanced. Even GW couldn't mess that up.

*The following is utterly biased but as this is the thread for it here goes*

I feel that some of the characters in the later books are quite a bit better than those in HH: Betrayal.

For example if you compare Abaddon (again, biased) with the Salamander's Nomus Rhy'tan or Sigismund, for very similar points there is, in my opinion, a pretty sizable disparity.

Firstly they are all rocking a 2+, 4++ save with Fearless (In Rhy'tan's case, Zealot) and some minor stat changes with points costs for Abaddon and Rhy'tan being the same and Sigismund being 15 points more. The three also have the Master of the Legion special rule.

Where they separate is that both Rhy'tan and Sigismund have Eternal Warrior. They both also have an at Initiative +2S AP2 Two Handed Weapon. Rhy'tan's weapon also has Armourbane and Fleshbane while Sigismund has a number of bonuses to fighting in close combat but is required to challenge.
Abaddon on the other hand can take a Powersword (at the lose of his Combi Bolter) which would also allow him to take advantage of the Merciless Fighters rule or use his MC-Powerfist which would disallow his use of Merciless Fighters.

Now I can kind of see where they are going with Abaddon, as he is allowed to Deep Strike with a squad of Terminators without the need for a specific Rite of War which can be quite powerful (Coupled with the mishap reroll), particularly when paired with the Tip of the Spear rule for the SoH. However it is kind of annoying to see those EW CC monsters.