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.

 mortetvie wrote:
That doesn't necessarily mean that 40k isn't balanced.

It doesn't necessarily mean it, but it's certainly very strong evidence. As I said, the most common reason for wanting to change the rules and create a particular format is a perception that there are balance problems, and the new format is an attempt to fix them. So the existence of tournament bans/restrictions/rule changes is indisputable evidence that many people believe that 40k has balance problems. So which is more likely: 40k does in fact have balance problems*, or that everyone is wrong?

*An almost inevitable result of GW's explicit position that balance is irrelevant.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element to it where if two people want to play a game, they need to agree upon what kind of game they want to play-do they want to have big killy titans or just keep it to some grot on grot action? That is what TOs attempt to do on a corporate level so that everyone can know what they can expect to face in terms of power level.

Allowing titans when someone is likely to bring just a few squads of Infantry is probably not going to amount to a meaningful game for either person so it makes sense to limit what you can take in the game to be roughly on the same power level. Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

 mortetvie wrote:
For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced.

It doesn't just appear to be unbalanced, it is unbalanced. If two equal-point armies, made with a reasonable amount of skill in list design, can't have a balanced game then it's indisputable proof that the game isn't balanced. In a balanced game an army with a titan and an army with lots of infantry would be at the same power level, and there would be no need to exclude the titan to allow the infantry player to have fun.

Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

This is the exact definition of "unbalanced".

Balance. I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

 mortetvie wrote:
Just because there are such variances in power level between models or even armies does not necessarily mean the game is unbalanced.

That is the very definition by which most people would conjure when they use the term "unbalanced"...

If there is a difference in power level between armies, there is an imbalance. Inherently and objectively.

Now, units are a different thing, different units serve different roles and whatnot, but if you're trying to make the case that armies of two different power levels are not unbalanced, nobody is going to buy that.

Even attempting to make the claim that 40k is balanced, a game where one army can comprise of 5 models and the other of 300, is by definition insane. Balanced can certainly be achieved, at least in as much as the collective yet subjective reasoning of two like minded individuals with the end goal of making two armies/collection both parties "feel" are "as fair as it's going to get" and are content having a game with. But it's the old story, people in this hobby often blame the player rather than the game.

I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I think this is worth discussing though:

 Crablezworth wrote:
But it's the old story, people in this hobby often blame the player rather than the game.

Crablezworth, I am going to claim that it is the *player* that needs blaming for imbalance, un-funness, etc. I'm not going to write up an eloquent opinion, I'm going to simply refer to data. ToF's records reflect a lot of the same names at the top of GTs & RTTs.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of different armies these top folks play. I think it is in my previous post that I cited PajamaPants won the Broadside Bash with orks. The guy is often at top tables. Placed #2 at BAO 2013. I know Reece plays many different armires, Eldar, orks, IG. Then again, Liz Foster sitcks with her Little Mermaid themed daemons.

Tiny bit more evidence (hopefully presenting a larger picture, using Sherlock Holmes's fallacied inductive reasoning ) :

I have played the same guy in the kiddie pool at the local RTT a couple times. His TWC versus the tau I ran, ought to have beaten me both times. Nope, he made bad target priority choices, didn't make a play for the main mission goals until too late. Constantly blamed his bad dice for loosing games, he says, for years. Naw, he's just bad at strategy and tactics.

And this has been my overall experience: Guys who lose consistently do so, regardless of the armies they play. Those who are/were top finishers, continue to do so, regardless of what army they play.

It's an old story, because it has been consistently true.

I agree that players are imbalanced in 40k and not so much the armies.

It is impossible to balance a game with so many variables but you can at least make a reasonable effort to not make things ridiculous like strength D on every other model...

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Back when I played the grots equivalent would have been a northern paladin the the Titan would have been a black lotus.

Social contract engaged.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 mortetvie wrote:
First of all, the fact that event specific rules/limitations exist is not necessarily indicative of 40k being unbalanced. Second of all, what is the metric you or anyone else uses to determine what is or isn't balanced? Third, it can be a million people complaining about any given thing but that does not necessarily suggest that whatever is being complained about has any issues. You need to look at what they are complaining about, how they are complaining about it and what support they have for those complaints.

So ultimately, what exactly is your point?

Morty, I really hope your point is that 40k is balanced.

My point ultimately is that 40k as a game is probably balanced but what people end up fielding in an army makes it appear unbalanced. For example, if someone takes 100 grots and someone takes a Titan, of course the game appears to be imbalanced. However, 40k is a game with a social contract element

And HERE is the exact problem. The only thing that two people should have to agree to is point level. The "social contract" exists in no other game. Don't you see an issue here? I have to negotiate WHAT models I can use because GW can't write a proper ruleset?

Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Back when I played the grots equivalent would have been a northern paladin the the Titan would have been a black lotus.

Social contract engaged.

We need GW to format the damn game. Hell, all they need to do is take a page from FW and index unit types and army construction to the point level the game is being played at. It's disgraceful that one could play a knight titan in a 500pt game.

DarthDiggler wrote:
Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Except that's not a social contract, it's an explicit tournament rule.

 Peregrine wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Magic the Gathering - block, standard legacy, vintage, etc.....

Except that's not a social contract, it's an explicit tournament rule.

A tourney rule like say limiting LOW to 1 per army or removing certain FW units that ignore cover?

When I play pickup games with friends we always agree on what tourney rules format we will use. ITC, NOVA, Adepticon, it's usually based off of what tourney someone is going to next.

When I play a pickup game with a stranger, one or both of us might have these tourney restrictions in mind when we bring our army to the game. Discussing this ahead of time can lead to a more equitable, balanced experience.

DarthDiggler wrote:
A tourney rule like say limiting LOW to 1 per army or removing certain FW units that ignore cover?

The context of the "social contract" involved negotiating the use of particular units, not merely following a tournament format.

To be fair, the difference between these MTG formats is far more vast than any 40k tournaments rules. They're far more akin to "Apocalypse vs Combat Patrol vs 1500pt Single CAD/no Formations/no-LoW vs something-else, etc".

Playing EDH is vastly different than playing Type 2 or Vintage for instance, trying to build a deck that's legal (or where even a majority of cards can be used) for all 3 is impossible, while ~95% of armies that attend an ITC event are good at Nova and Adepticon or can be made so with limited changes.

Such formats also are very well known by the overwhelmingly vast majority of the playerbase, even if they don't play all of them, while most 40k players couldn't tell you the difference between ITC rules and Adepticon rules.

You can also go anywhere and find a game using any of the MTG formats, while the various 40k formats are very regional, often only applying to a single event. Use outside of these events largely is simply a social contract.

The biggest difference, IIRC, is that Magic's various playtypes are all, to some degree, supported or at least defined by WotC, and have existed for years or in some cases over a decade (maybe two?), while 40k's various different tournament formats are all really very new, very limited in application, are all player created with zero recognition or support from GW.

TL;DR MTG's formats are longstanding, highly varied, widely recognized and officially defined/supported by the parent company and are explicitly different modes of play, while the various 40k tournament restrictions are none of these things.

http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

 Cheebs wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

Wow, I'm amazed there's not already a thread on this.

 Cheebs wrote:
http://natfka.blogspot.com/2015/05/skitarii-tournament-report-from-storm.html?m=1

Eldar did bad. Codex is fine. Sky is not falling. Eldar are not pruning all the villages or raping all the hedges.

So, one Eldar list was a small supplement to an Adamantine Lance. The other being a relatively small Wraith-heavy army with almost nothing in the way of "volume" of fire units, some questionable usage of Invisibility, facing an enemy composed almost entirely of large and relatively weeny infantry units (poor targets for D weapons) and able to deploy with an overwhelming alpha strike made possible by allied drop pods (with lots of Plasma, Grav, and Haywire guns to boot across the army) and can sport BS7/6/5 for the first three turns of the game with high RoF basic guns that cause double-wounds on 6's.

I wouldn't say it's a stellar example of what the new Eldar are capable of.

Much like the LVO didn't tell us much about the new Necrons (who took 4 of the top 10 spots at the Storm of Silence), I don't think this event is telling us much about the new Eldar either.

 Brothererekose wrote:


Crablezworth, I am going to claim that it is the *player* that needs blaming for imbalance, un-funness, etc. I'm not going to write up an eloquent opinion, I'm going to simply refer to data. ToF's records reflect a lot of the same names at the top of GTs & RTTs.

It'd be interesting to see the percentage of different armies these top folks play. I think it is in my previous post that I cited PajamaPants won the Broadside Bash with orks. The guy is often at top tables. Placed #2 at BAO 2013. I know Reece plays many different armires, Eldar, orks, IG. Then again, Liz Foster sitcks with her Little Mermaid themed daemons.

Tiny bit more evidence (hopefully presenting a larger picture, using Sherlock Holmes's fallacied inductive reasoning ) :

I have played the same guy in the kiddie pool at the local RTT a couple times. His TWC versus the tau I ran, ought to have beaten me both times. Nope, he made bad target priority choices, didn't make a play for the main mission goals until too late. Constantly blamed his bad dice for loosing games, he says, for years. Naw, he's just bad at strategy and tactics.

And this has been my overall experience: Guys who lose consistently do so, regardless of the armies they play. Those who are/were top finishers, continue to do so, regardless of what army they play.

It's an old story, because it has been consistently true.

I think this boils down to the heart of the matter. From all I've read on this subject across various threads, while you can argue all day about the power difference with Eldar, the reality is that the people who consistently win do so not simply because of the army they've selected. They win because they are good at the game, and while list composition will always be a factor in any game system that allows for this variance, a strong player will rise to the top, even when using perceived sub-par codexes or weak combinations.

Is 40K balanced? Probably not as few games really are; however, player skill is still the determining factor in victory. This is part of game design as while yes, 1500 points of grots cannot kill a Reaver titan, it is entirely possible that 1500 points of grots will win on scenario. It is also true that this same matchup will absolutely go the other way if the mission is kill points. You cannot compare point values and point value effeciency in a vacuum as player skill dictates how this effeciency is utilized in an actual game setting. 10 scatbikes may pump out 40 strength 6 shots for 270 points, but if the controlling player leverages this poorly, then the end result is the same: a poor outcome.

Should any game company strive for balance? Absolutely. Is this game unbalanced? Probably. Is this codex too-good? That is unclear as there is not enough real-world data for or against the position to make an accurate assessment.

Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

 Brothererekose wrote:
I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

To be fair, I am not one to dismiss good or valid arguments and I am not opposed to having my mind changed.

Now in terms of arguing about balance, I made 2 major points that I don't think were ever really addressed:

(1) What is the metric one uses or relies upon to say something is balanced or imbalanced? Without a meaningful metric, it is meaningless to say that something is balanced or imbalanced as those assertions are then merely opinions. Since no one has come up with anything on this point, claiming the game is or is not balanced cannot be proven/supported.

(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself. For example, if I choose to build an army list that doesn't have an answer to X but I have options that can deal with X, I can't rightly blame imbalance on the game itself when I lose to X. To put it another way, imbalance between what people choose to take in their armies=/=the game itself is imbalanced.

Going deeper on point (2), take Starcraft as an example. I use Starcraft because that is a game where balance is important and every army has an answer to pretty much anything else another army can have. Give both players 500 Minerals/Gas and let them build whatever they want (this of this as 40k out of the rulebook). if one player builds a Battle Cruiser and another builds an Ultralisk, the Battle Cruiser will win 100% of the time-does that mean starcraft is unbalanced? No, that just means that one player chose poorly in terms of what to build. Likewise, in 40k, both players agree on a set points limit and can "build" whatever for their army. If one person chooses to get a Titan and another chooses to get a bazillion Grots, does that mean the game is unbalanced? Simply put, no. Just because there can be uneven or imbalanced match-ups between units does not mean the game is unbalanced.

The fact is, players choose what to put in their lists and how to play those lists and therefore the issues are more likely with the players than the armies/game itself. Just because someone can and does bring a Titan and you do not does not make the game imbalanced-to say it does is faulty reasoning (blaming player choice and the consequences of those choices on the game itself). This is because you know, going into any game of 40k played out of the box-without any modifications-that you might face a titan and if you do not prepare for that eventuality, the problem is with the list you brought, not with the rules that allowed the titan. If you don't WANT to play against a titan, that is another issue altogether, which is what tournament formats and a pre-game discussion on what a game will look like is all about.

What tournament formats do is to limit/prevent imbalanced match-ups by laying a foundation of how armies are built and what can be in them so that everyone knows what they can expect to face in any given event. So if you play in an event that allows Titans or unbound, you need to know what to expect and build accordingly. If you get into such an event and go up against a Titan with your army of 100 grots, the game isn't the problem, the list you brought is.

I hope that makes sense...

 MikeFox wrote:
Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

Makes me wonder if the Wave serpents where what was truly holding eldar up and putting things like ork down.


I hope we see more interesting lists come out.

something has gone right if orks have won

 mortetvie wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:
I'm not gonna claim anything about a 'balanced 40k'. I think the points system (RB's example of 2 or 3 ork boyz being equal to 1 tactical marine) has been GW's attempt at balance from the onset, but after several iterations ... generations? Editions ... of the game, it's quite beyond balanced.

I'd stop arguing with mortetvie. Attorneys are trained to argue rules sets (the Law) and as that is his RL career choice, it's a pretty solid brick wall your bashing against, Crablezworth & Vaktathi.

mortetvie <3

To be fair, I am not one to dismiss good or valid arguments and I am not opposed to having my mind changed.

Now in terms of arguing about balance, I made 2 major points that I don't think were ever really addressed:

(1) What is the metric one uses or relies upon to say something is balanced or imbalanced? Without a meaningful metric, it is meaningless to say that something is balanced or imbalanced as those assertions are then merely opinions. Since no one has come up with anything on this point, claiming the game is or is not balanced cannot be proven/supported.

(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself. For example, if I choose to build an army list that doesn't have an answer to X but I have options that can deal with X, I can't rightly blame imbalance on the game itself when I lose to X. To put it another way, imbalance between what people choose to take in their armies=/=the game itself is imbalanced.

Going deeper on point (2), take Starcraft as an example. I use Starcraft because that is a game where balance is important and every army has an answer to pretty much anything else another army can have. Give both players 500 Minerals/Gas and let them build whatever they want (this of this as 40k out of the rulebook). if one player builds a Battle Cruiser and another builds an Ultralisk, the Battle Cruiser will win 100% of the time-does that mean starcraft is unbalanced? No, that just means that one player chose poorly in terms of what to build. Likewise, in 40k, both players agree on a set points limit and can "build" whatever for their army. If one person chooses to get a Titan and another chooses to get a bazillion Grots, does that mean the game is unbalanced? Simply put, no. Just because there can be uneven or imbalanced match-ups between units does not mean the game is unbalanced.

The fact is, players choose what to put in their lists and how to play those lists and therefore the issues are more likely with the players than the armies/game itself. Just because someone can and does bring a Titan and you do not does not make the game imbalanced-to say it does is faulty reasoning (blaming player choice and the consequences of those choices on the game itself). This is because you know, going into any game of 40k played out of the box-without any modifications-that you might face a titan and if you do not prepare for that eventuality, the problem is with the list you brought, not with the rules that allowed the titan. If you don't WANT to play against a titan, that is another issue altogether, which is what tournament formats and a pre-game discussion on what a game will look like is all about.

What tournament formats do is to limit/prevent imbalanced match-ups by laying a foundation of how armies are built and what can be in them so that everyone knows what they can expect to face in any given event. So if you play in an event that allows Titans or unbound, you need to know what to expect and build accordingly. If you get into such an event and go up against a Titan with your army of 100 grots, the game isn't the problem, the list you brought is.

I hope that makes sense...

1. Lets look at the most applicable definition for "Balance". "a condition in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions." In 40k, we purchase units for points, these points are supposed to be of equal value. Therefore, when we purchase a unit for points, it is supposed to provide us certain capabilities that are appropriate for that point cost. Now, what is purchased is not going to be identical, but given the different aspects of the game and how they interact, we should be receiving an adequate and appropriately similar value. A simple example is Durability, Firepower, Melee Ability, and Movement, Special Rules, etc.

Effectively, a certain value in points should purchase a roughly equivalent effect on the game. How that is exactly expresses will differ, but points are the metric we assess balance. Now, list design, army composition, and loadouts are part of points cost, they also provide synergy, which means we should have the option to purchase units which can also yield roughly equivalent synergy.

The game is unbalanced when one faction can purchase for their set value in points, either a greater ability to affect the game, or have access to much greater synergy than another army, or even unit selection within the same army.

Intracodex example, Wraithlord vs Wraithknight. The Wraithknihgt simply put yields a much greater ability to affect the game for its points cost than the Wraithlord. Or purchasing a Multimelta for a Space Marine vs buying one for an Biker with Relentless. Often, these weapons are the same cost but provide an inherently different ability to affect the game either through cost or synergy.

Aspect Host vs non Aspect Host units. +1 Ballistic Skill for effectively no additional cost with this formation. When compared to Formation from other Codices it yields a much greater impact on the game. Also, Decurion, etc.

Intercodex example, Space Marine vs Windrider EJB. 14pts vs 17pts. They have similar durability. SMs have some minor specials rules but overall 3 pts buys EJBs gamechanging mobility, added durability through Jink, Rending Shooting, and a much greater access to cheap and very effective heavy weapons, etc. Quite simply put the EJBs bring a much greater ability to affect the game for the very similar costs in points meaning Eldar gain more impact on the game for the same cost.

Another Example 6th Ed Wraithknight vs 7th Edition Wraithknight. It gained over 50% greater durability, massively increased firepower, greater CC ability, all for only 23%increase in cost. On a unit that was already on the very high end of game impact/point.

Another example is the Allies Matrix.

You asked for your metric, lets definite it as "The Point Cost System as a method for purchasing a roughly equal, even if different, ability to affect the game and the relative and readily available synergy available for those Points."

The difficult part is assessing a units ability to truly affect the game for its cost, but we have some very easy examples, especially between 6th Ed Eldar and 7th Ed Eldar, or between SM factions that pay a different cost in points for identical upgrades or even units.


2. We can establish imbalance between units and codices given out metric above. Given widespread imbalance withing codices, whether in individual unit's ability to affect the game per their cost in points, or the unfair access to synergy available to them we can establish that most armies are not "Balanced" with each other. And if we were to look at each Codex in relation tot he others we would have a very strong grouping, especially among the first half dozen or so 7th edition codices, and we would also have some major outliers. The most rational balance point would be around this central and prominent grouping of which we would have two major outliers, Necrons and Eldar. Necrons primarily due to Decurian which is an almost no cost +~33% increase in durability, and Eldar which received almost accross the board buffs with no corresponding or inadequate increases in cost as well as access to formation that grant more significant benefits for little or no effective cost.

Your Starcraft example is faulty, both units can have an equal ability to affect the game just through different mechanisms. What matters is their total ability to affect the game, not that either are imbalanced in a fight against solely each other.

In 40k it is quite possible to purchase well balance dedicated CC and dedicated shooting units that are equally worth their points and bring an equivalent, albeit differing, ability to affect the game. Imbalance occurs when armies do not purchase equivalent for cost ways to affect the game or do not have access to relatively equal options for synergy.

We can cite a plethora of examples of this disparity which makes it quite clear that massive imbalances exist between the codices and game as a whole.

 Desubot wrote:

 MikeFox wrote:
Also there were 3 Eldar lists at the Game Empire ITC event this past weekend and let them use the rule book rules for D weapons. And guess what, they didn't do very good. The best list which had all the bells and whistles (d flamers with the WWP, 3 crimson hunters, heavy weapon biker units) went 2-1.

Hell they top two armies were Chaos deamons and Orks.

The new Eldar have some brutal lists but no more then a Wolf star or any other hard hitting lists.

Makes me wonder if the Wave serpents where what was truly holding eldar up and putting things like ork down.


I hope we see more interesting lists come out.

something has gone right if orks have won

Orks missed winning by 1 point. Ork list included a gargantuan squiggoth bully boyz and a pain boy I believe. Mike Fox can give you the run down if you're interested

Boom baby. Big Fat Fatty aka Mr. Stompy only took one wound the whole day.

Great Whaagh Detachment
Big Mek, Klaw, Super KFF
Warboss in Mega Armor, Big Boss Pole
5 MANz
10 Grot
10 Grot
Big Track, Boarding planks
Big Track, Boarding planks
Gargantuan Squiggoth

Ally Detachment
Pain Boy
10 grot

BULLY BOYZ
5 MANZ, trukk
5 MANZ
5 MANZ

 MikeFox wrote:
Boom baby. Big Fat Fatty aka Mr. Stompy only took one wound the whole day.

Great Whaagh Detachment
Big Mek, Klaw, Super KFF
Warboss in Mega Armor, Big Boss Pole
5 MANz
10 Grot
10 Grot
Big Track, Boarding planks
Big Track, Boarding planks
Gargantuan Squiggoth

Ally Detachment
Pain Boy
10 grot

BULLY BOYZ
5 MANZ, trukk
5 MANZ
5 MANZ

Sweet moogly

Do you have a play by play or battle report? how did it fair. (though its a bit OT so Pm or thread link wouldnt be a bad idea )

Zagman, the problem with your analysis is summed up in asking you why your chosen means of determining balance is correct, authoritative or appropriate? Also, you fail to show why the Starcraft example is faulty because while different units have a different effect on the game, the point of the game is to kill a person's army/base and if the Battle Cruiser can destroy the Ultralisk with impunity, and do so relatively easily, it gives the appearance of imbalance much like comparing certain other units in 40k with each other gives a similar appearance of imbalance. Therefore, how a unit impacts the game is irrelevant if it doesn't have an opportunity to impact the game at all. The starcraft analogy is there to illustrate how it is actually faulty to make comparisons in a vacuum as virtually anyone and everyone is doing so to support the proposition that 40k is imbalanced.

Indeed, there is one thing in saying the game is imbalanced (i.e., the rules and mechanics of the game and the game as a whole); and quite another in saying units or match-ups are imbalanced (e.g., comparing Scatter Jetbikes with Devastators). One does not necessarily mean the other and just because the latter exists, does not mean the game is imbalanced since as per 40k rules, everyone technically has access to the same exact things-they just choose not to take those things or they choose to accept limitations imposed upon them via social contract or tournament restrictions.

After reading most of this thread the question I have for everyone would be : Is variety and the ability to customize an army more important than balance? If it is you should probably accept all the rules GW puts out or your cherry picking. If balance is the thing you crave and TO's can do what they want, why don't they make make a single army list for all to play. SM vs SM for example , same army, same points, no excuses.

 mortetvie wrote:


(2) The simple fact that there can be an imbalance between units or armies does not mean the game itself is imbalanced. Indeed, as long as every army has an answer to anything else that can be taken in the game, the problems arise from what people choose to take in their armies and chances are that that is where the problem lies, not in the armies themselves or the game itself.

Morty, Where's the SOB anti-flier or psykers?