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.

So, inspired by a recent discussion of Forgeworld legality/balance, I wanted to find out how balanced people think the various aspects of the game are.

How balanced do you consider Forgeworld rules? And how balanced do you consider the current rules? For clarity's sake, when discussing rules, please only discuss the current rules for units/models. Also, for the sake of this argument, I'm going to assume that absolute perfect balance of rules (as fair as a balanced coin flip, say) is impossible. What we're looking for is reasonable game balance.

Also, assume that for all games, 25% of the table has terrain, and that the terrain is LOS blocking/hindering. Also, assume that the missions being played are all standard book missions. (In fact, consider the standard book missions to be part of the 'standard rules.')

The 6th edition CRB is quite good, I think. But the codices that followed have terrible balance between each other and often internally as well.

Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

Well, clearly, I do.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

Well, clearly, I do.

Good luck with that

Frankly, I hate balanced games (e.g. Chess). I play 40K because it is not.

Both are not well balanced.

The advantage FW has is the release of experimental rules which are followed by a toned down published rule. Still, the company as a whole is disappointing from a balance perspective.

Same here.

For me, having a balanced game enhances the hobby, while one-sided battles have a bad taste regardless of winning or losing.

I voted NO-NO. I admit I am curious about how many people find the game balanced.

I think, overall, the game is reasonably balanced, but it's all cocked up due to a few outrageous exceptions.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

People who enjoy actually playing a game without having to come to a player-to-player agreement to fix it before setting off?

For instance, I have Eldar and Blood Angels armies. If I want to use my Eldar at a friendly pick-up game at the club, I have to handicap myself and make my list worse on purpose for it to even be a point to play the Grey Knights guy, or the Orks guy. And on the flipside, if I bring my Blood Angels there's just no point in even setting up against the local Necron player, even if he brings his casual list, because we both know what's going to happen.

Thud wrote:
I think, overall, the game is reasonably balanced, but it's all cocked up due to a few outrageous exceptions.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

People who enjoy actually playing a game without having to come to a player-to-player agreement to fix it before setting off?

For instance, I have Eldar and Blood Angels armies. If I want to use my Eldar at a friendly pick-up game at the club, I have to handicap myself and make my list worse on purpose for it to even be a point to play the Grey Knights guy, or the Orks guy. And on the flipside, if I bring my Blood Angels there's just no point in even setting up against the local Necron player, even if he brings his casual list, because we both know what's going to happen.

My last game with pure BA, we stopped at turn 3 and got hamburgers because it was a more productive use of time. Yeah, balance matters. If I didn't have a huge amount of BA already, I'd probably just do Starcraft.

As has been noted elsewhere, 6th edition was not written as a balanced and competitive ruleset, by GW's own statements at the Design Studio's open day event last year the 40k rules are a narrative framework with which to play with your GW plastic toys. Is the game balanced? No. Not by a longshot. Never has been, likely never will be, even when you can say that "all armies are equally capable of winning" you generally can't say they are all capable of doing it as flexibly or in as many ways. Is FW perfectly balanced? No, but no moreso than the rest of GW's stuff. Most of it's fine, some of it's unusable, some of it's OP, but certainly not any worse in general than codex stuff.

I haven't found FW inclusion to impact the game any worse than a new codex does at worst, usually much less.

I am still on the fence concerning balance in WH40K and FW respectively. I do reserve the right to change my mind as I come into more contact with FW models, and as codexes get updated to 6th ed. But for the most part, who cares about balance. Play the army you want to play.

I voted other as I think that the rules balance is dependent on the missions you play and the tables you play on.

If you play with at least 25% LoS blocking terrain with BAO style missions the game seems reasonably balanced for both rule sets.

If you play with no LoS blocking terrain then CWE and Tau dominate FW or not. FW helps a few armies even the field a little but not enough to completely balance it out.

Book missions are so dependent on the mission rolled it is impossible to comment. KP makes DE almost a non factor and the relic makes IG a secondaries only army. There is no such thing as "balance" in book missions.

If you play FW army lists then the game is balanced at a lower power level than standard dexs.

FW actually has done a great job balancing the power level in all of it's newer publications. The only units that could still use some tweaking are sabre platforms (+5-10 pts), heavy artillery carriages (+10 pts), and vultures (+10-20 pts), but only because the army they are taken in has easy access to lord commissars, they have to compete with vendettas, and IG can spam them for a net gain.

 ansacs wrote:
I voted other as I think that the rules balance is dependent on the missions you play and the tables you play on.

If you play with at least 25% LoS blocking terrain with BAO style missions the game seems reasonably balanced for both rule sets.

If you play with no LoS blocking terrain then CWE and Tau dominate FW or not. FW helps a few armies even the field a little but not enough to completely balance it out.

Book missions are so dependent on the mission rolled it is impossible to comment. KP makes DE almost a non factor and the relic makes IG a secondaries only army. There is no such thing as "balance" in book missions.

If you play FW army lists then the game is balanced at a lower power level than standard dexs.

FW actually has done a great job balancing the power level in all of it's newer publications. The only units that could still use some tweaking are sabre platforms (+5-10 pts), heavy artillery carriages (+10 pts), and vultures (+10-20 pts), but only because the army they are taken in has easy access to lord commissars, they have to compete with vendettas, and IG can spam them for a net gain.

Thanks, ansacs. I'll clarify this in the original post.

first of all, there are far too many options on that poll.

Secondly, 40k is not balanced, but it is not supposed to be. But neither is it supposed to be glaringly unbalanced, which i think it should be better at, but i don't for a second believe that 40k is as absurdly unbalanced as many think it is.

Yes, one unit at x points will always be better than a unit that costs x + 20 points, but so what? Just because a vendetta will always be better than a a hellhound, why should that mean i won't run a hellhound? It still has strengths and weaknesses, and introduces a new tactical element that wasn't there before. As long as my opponent shares this philosophy - playing to win without using cheese/spam - then i'll have a whale of a time.

xruslanx wrote:
first of all, there are far too many options on that poll.

Secondly, 40k is not balanced, but it is not supposed to be. But neither is it supposed to be glaringly unbalanced, which i think it should be better at, but i don't for a second believe that 40k is as absurdly unbalanced as many think it is.

Yes, one unit at x points will always be better than a unit that costs x + 20 points, but so what? Just because a vendetta will always be better than a a hellhound, why should that mean i won't run a hellhound? It still has strengths and weaknesses, and introduces a new tactical element that wasn't there before. As long as my opponent shares this philosophy - playing to win without using cheese/spam - then i'll have a whale of a time.

The really good units in 40k are not good because they are undercosted, they are good because of what they can do. A Screamerstar with Fateweaver backing it up runs about 1100 points, and a Seer Council about 900 points. The problem is not that Warlocks are only 50 points each, or that the Grimoire is only 30 points instead of 60, or 100, or whatever, it's the amazing combos that simply obliterates poor sods with Blood Angels or Orks.

Hooray, another thread I can post this in:


Standard 40k is clearly way out of balance, just look at Tau vs Dark Angels. From what I've seen of Forge World it has similar balance issues, though perhaps not as pronounced. Most Forge World stuff seems to be pretty overpriced for what it can do, but some are just obscenely good.

 Zweischneid wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

Well, clearly, I do.

Good luck with that

Frankly, I hate balanced games (e.g. Chess). I play 40K because it is not.

I don't know man, every since the new codex, Black has been ridiculous. I don't know what they were thinking buffing Knights like that

Thud wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
first of all, there are far too many options on that poll.

Secondly, 40k is not balanced, but it is not supposed to be. But neither is it supposed to be glaringly unbalanced, which i think it should be better at, but i don't for a second believe that 40k is as absurdly unbalanced as many think it is.

Yes, one unit at x points will always be better than a unit that costs x + 20 points, but so what? Just because a vendetta will always be better than a a hellhound, why should that mean i won't run a hellhound? It still has strengths and weaknesses, and introduces a new tactical element that wasn't there before. As long as my opponent shares this philosophy - playing to win without using cheese/spam - then i'll have a whale of a time.

The really good units in 40k are not good because they are undercosted, they are good because of what they can do. A Screamerstar with Fateweaver backing it up runs about 1100 points, and a Seer Council about 900 points. The problem is not that Warlocks are only 50 points each, or that the Grimoire is only 30 points instead of 60, or 100, or whatever, it's the amazing combos that simply obliterates poor sods with Blood Angels or Orks.

how 40k operates when people try to stretch the rules to create op concequences aren't really important to me though.

I love the deamon codex, and the grimoire is not the op monstrosity people think it is. First of all, you have to pay a fair bit for it - especially if fateweaver is taken to make sure you pass the grimoir role. Secondly, and more importantly, its effects aren't nearly as severe when the demon player doesn't put all his points into one deathstar. If a demon player has a non-cheese list, the grimoire will simply make one of his units very tough for a round, for a very hefty price. Killing fateweaver or the holder of the grimoire will put a stop to it anyway.

Again, it depends on an unspoken agreement between players to not be dicks about it. But gw do mess up, some armies are simply weaker than others, but 6th is balancing that out. I'll single out grey knights in fifth, for being an army that was point for point superior over all preceeding codexes, a mistake which appears not to have been repeated...touch wood.

I voted that neither are balanced. As was stated, when the publisher of the rules says they're not meant to be used for competition... you can't expect them to care. (I know, most of us find this to be an outrageous cop-out).

If you look to this game just to play it competitively then I feel you're in for a poor experience. The game should be more balanced then it is, and I hope that in the future.. they will spend more time to help along the balance.

xruslanx wrote:
Again, it depends on an unspoken agreement between players to not be dicks about it. But gw do mess up, some armies are simply weaker than others, but 6th is balancing that out. I'll single out grey knights in fifth, for being an army that was point for point superior over all preceeding codexes, a mistake which appears not to have been repeated...touch wood.

Clearly you haven't read the Tau or Eldar codices and compared them to Dark Angels.

I'm honest, I'm surprised. 77% of respondents feel that the standard rules are unbalanced so far. I knew that it was a common belief, but I had no idea how common. Hmm.

I'm a little relieved that since my last check, I'm not the ONLY person who thinks the standard rules are okay, but Forgeworld is out-of-balance. I was starting to feel like the only normal guy in Bizarro world for a second.

How can you say a game with Codex: Eldar and Codex: Blood Angels is remotely balanced? Or even Codex: Dark Angels and Codex: Eldar. It's a frickin joke.

...because I recently watched a Blood Angels player trounce an Eldar player?

Seriously, experience as a player, experience with your own army, and experience against your opponent's army will trump codex shininess every time. A Blood Angels player, a dedicated one, (not one who happens to own BA and just flits between a half a dozen armies) should have a fair degree of experience with their own army by now. So long as they embrace the cyclical nature of the 40k rules and adapt to new armies and new editions by modifying their tactics, they should still have a viable army.

I haven't lost a game to the new Eldar codex yet, despite the doomsaying that has accompanied it.

So you're saying balance is unnecessary as long as you can win if there's a sufficient skill gap? Or are you saying that because you saw Blood Angels beat Eldar once they're totally balanced codices?

I could borrow my buddy's Eldar army and you would likely never beat me with pure BA out of 10 games. Not once. Dedication won't help you against mathematics. I guess you could go MSU Stormraven. That would take a couple of games. But literally no other BA build is physically capable of causing enough damage to be a serious threat.

I'm not saying either. I'm saying that the codexes ARE balanced, (reasonably) and that lack of experience creates the illusion of a power gap between codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I could borrow my buddy's Eldar army and you would likely never beat me with pure BA out of 10 games. Not once.

Of course I wouldn't. I don't play Blood Angels.

But if you take two people who have never played the game, say two brand new players, give them a week to study the rulebook and their codex, give one Blood Angels and the other Eldar, I think it would be a tossup between them.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm not saying either. I'm saying that the codexes ARE balanced, (reasonably) and that lack of experience creates the illusion of a power gap between codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I could borrow my buddy's Eldar army and you would likely never beat me with pure BA out of 10 games. Not once.

Of course I wouldn't. I don't play Blood Angels.

But if you take two people who have never played the game, say two brand new players, give them a week to study the rulebook and their codex, give one Blood Angels and the other Eldar, I think it would be a tossup between them.

I think that's a bit nuts. Just look at the firepower of the Eldar. The codices are not reasonably balanced at all. It would appear that most agree with me as well for what that matters.

And for above, I don't play Eldar. But I'm confident I could take Eldar and wipe pretty much any BA up pretty easily. Because of the codex.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm not saying either. I'm saying that the codexes ARE balanced, (reasonably) and that lack of experience creates the illusion of a power gap between codexes.

I take the opposite view, where the codices are imbalanced and the gap in skill/experience between the players in your area has created an illusion that there is no power gap.

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm not saying either. I'm saying that the codexes ARE balanced, (reasonably) and that lack of experience creates the illusion of a power gap between codexes.

I take the opposite view, where the codices are imbalanced and the gap in skill/experience between the players in your area has created an illusion that there is no power gap.

This. There's not much skill to BA vs Eldar really. The Eldar player spends a lot of time telling which BA units need to start making rolls.

Voted "neither are balanced", because it's true. GW doesn't playtest their rules, and the inevitable result is that balance is pretty much nonexistent. Balance between armies is awful, especially when some armies don't have rules from the current edition, and internal balance within each army is unbelievably bad. FW rules are just more of the same, not really any better or worse than anything else GW publishes.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Who cares about balance in 40K? Seriously?

Yeah, who cares about having an interesting game where both players have a roughly equal chance of winning and the outcome depends on who makes better strategic decisions. It's much more fun to have terrible balance where 90% of winning is identifying the most overpowered choices and spamming them, and games can be over before they begin simply because one player took the overpowered stuff and the other player didn't.

xruslanx wrote:
As long as my opponent shares this philosophy - playing to win without using cheese/spam - then i'll have a whale of a time.

IOW, as long as you and your opponent make an effort to fix the balance mistakes you won't have a problem with balance mistakes. Thanks for stating the obvious there, but it doesn't mean that GW's rules are balanced (or even close to professional quality).

 Jimsolo wrote:
...because I recently watched a Blood Angels player trounce an Eldar player?

One game doesn't prove anything. Dice are an obvious factor, one player can be significantly better than the other, one player could be playing an optimized list with every overpowered option in their codex while the other player is playing a bunch of random stuff, etc. To get any relevant information you have to look at a lot of games, and the result is that if you have a BA and Eldar player of roughly equal skill that both use the same level of list optimization the Eldar player should win way more than half the time.