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.

Ive been looking into the armies of 40k and wanting to get into the game but conflicted on the various opinions on 40k. Is 40k's balance (based on the current edition which i belive is 7th) so bad to a point where it is unplayable or is all the voiced opinions of its unbalance subjective banter? Appreciate the communities input.

no it's not. it's got some issues, but the thing tio bear in mind is 40k is essentially intended as kind of a beer and pretzels game if you're looking for a tourny game, look elsewhere.

Its still fun, there are issues as one look at general will tell you.

But if you don't let it get out of hand its good fun, find people who want to play at the same level as you and you will enjoy it, I've tried a lot of other wargames and I always come back to 40k.

I find even in the semi competetive environment I play in we rarely have all the "game breaking" problems you find people disucssing online.

All in all I really enjoy 40k games as a whole.

Find the right people, approach it the right way (ie partially co-operative in terms of what hits the tabletop) and it can work. There are severe balance issues and numerous problems, and it's kind of expected that you work with your opponent to make the games you play work and to deal with it's problem areas.

40k is not a tourney game nor is it really suitable for pugs. You can't just necessarily slap stuff down on the board and expect an 'equal' game. 'You get out whAt your willing to put in', and while 40k arguably requires more investment (time, money, effort) there's no reason you can't enjoy it.

In my opinion any game table top game that is played can be made into a game you would rather through over a hillside then play. I agree with everybody else. You just have to find a good group of people to play with good rules to limit the OP stuff. Even with that you will have frustrating games where the dice roll all the ways you do not want them too, which may not be fun unless you can laugh at the concept of things going soo bad. On the other hand, if you play long enough you'll have epic super close fun games, even if you lost.
Example I played a friend orks against gray wolves nearly table me all I had left was gretchen who got charged by terminators, actually killed two in over watch, TWO, thats 6's to hit then 5+ to wound, then he rolled snake eyes couldn't believe it , was one of the most memorable loss of my gaming life.
Anyway you get the point, take the good with the bad its still only as fun as you make it.

There are several "builds" available at all power levels of the game. (Although not all books have access to all levels, namely only a few can make entire lists from top tier units while still being synergistic and sound.)

If two builds of similar power go against each other, the game runs pretty nicely, assuming one also doesn't hard counter the other via unit types or other mechanics. This includes the top levels of power.

The issue with that is that no two players will ever completely agree on exactly HOW powerful everything is.

I find two good options for the game:
1. Use allies, formations, or whatever else you need to run a tournament-worthy list. Encourage your prospective opponent to do the same. Or just go to tournaments to skip that conversation entirely. I've had nothing but fun ever since I started attending tournies, and have several new facebook friends. So far my "jerk-to-coolguy ratio" sits at something like 1 out of every 10 or so.

2. If you want to have a good close game, have both players give input on both lists, possibly with a random roll to see which list each player gets after the lists are finalized.

3. If you just want to push around plastic, who cares about losing? Every once in a while I just take my "close combat box" down to the LGS and run something like assault marine spam for fun. When I do so, I encourage the opponent to bring what they want. Super heavies, unbound, more points than me if they want. I didn't show up looking for a win, so why care? Back to point 1, I think going to tournaments and having an outlet to sate my "competitive thirst" really opens me up mentally to having these "strictly for funsies" games. I used to want to win on some level all the time. Now tourneys are for winning, funsies games are for funsies with snacks and a free afternoon, and I have fun at both.

Actually, not.

If your aim is to win battles, you will be disappointed.
Maelstrom missions are fun but too unpredictable.

Moreover, the basic questions when you configure an army are
bound or unbound, superheavies or not, formations and CADs, etc.
This gives players a hard time to field an all comers list.

Despite all the whining, it's the same as it's always been: totally dependent on who you play. You must find a good playing group or you will not enjoy yourself. In my area, 40 people play 40k and only about 12 play the competition game, Warmachine. The Warmachine players are competitive top- level players, the 40k players have been around usually 10-15 years or they are younger so in general there's no interest in what's "super powerful" right now.

Because in 40k, that changes really fast. The "omg overpowered" army of 5 days ago is the "what you're still playing that???" Of now.

I consider it playable enough if you manage to find yourself in a relaxed gaming environment where people are willing to houserule their way out of issues created by a true mess of a ruleset.

On the other hand, I don't really feel like getting anywhere near a more competitive scene (i.e. tournaments).

gudtymer wrote:
subjective banter?

I think this pretty much sums it up. I don't give much credit to what I read about the "un-playability" and "un-balancedness" of 40k. (This forum seems especially prone to negative sentiments.) Hyperbole plays better on the internet so people tend to go there. In real life things are not nearly as bad as what is described.

I have fun playing. I play one or 2 games a week and they all seem to be close in the end. I also enjoy building and painting the models which gives me something to do when I need to get away form the family a bit and hide out in the basement for a couple of hours "painting my dudes".

 wuestenfux wrote:

Maelstrom missions are fun

Agreed. If you just want to 'have fun' ie winning at a competitive level doesn't interest you, then 40K is an excellent choice.

If you want to play a very well balanced strategy game that has an incredibly well developed tournament scene, I recommend Magic: The Gathering.

Edit: my housemate and I have reached a good tradeoff between the two - we're aware of the 'filth' lists, and have run/tested variants of a few, but neither of us is that interested in tournaments. As a sort of 'middle ground', we're going with a bunch of friends to Warhammer World in September. There will be some cheese, but the main aim will be to meet new friends and have fun. And possibly get very drunk in rock bars

zerosignal wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

Maelstrom missions are fun

Agreed. If you just want to 'have fun' ie winning at a competitive level doesn't interest you, then 40K is an excellent choice.

If you want to play a very well balanced strategy game that has an incredibly well developed tournament scene, I recommend Magic: The Gathering.

Edit: my housemate and I have reached a good tradeoff between the two - we're aware of the 'filth' lists, and have run/tested variants of a few, but neither of us is that interested in tournaments. As a sort of 'middle ground', we're going with a bunch of friends to Warhammer World in September. There will be some cheese, but the main aim will be to meet new friends and have fun. And possibly get very drunk in rock bars

Well - funny you mention MTG because i find the two games to be very similar. There is a huge meta game in both games competitive scene and casually the games are very different. I actually thing 40k is becoming more like magic every day. It's more about combos these days in 40k than it ever has been - magic is the same way.

Can you expect to win ether a MTG or WH40k game if you aren't bringing the best and most OP units/cards? NO.

In MTG there is just as much blatant imbalance as in 40k. Sometimes youll have a 2/3 with no abilities that costs 4 mana! somtimes you can get a 2/3 with flying deathtouch and life link for 2 mana! There is no question that MTG has no balance between it's own cards. Same can be said of 40k in literally hundereds of examples.

So IMO 40k = MTG

It's only fun if you have a close group of like-minded people. Without that, I'd avoid at all costs.

If there's an active group that plays near you, and they're all right people, I'd say go for it. The game isn't great, but nothing that can't be either endured or worked around.

Games are about having fun, and 40k isn't so broken that you can't have fun if everybody is on board.

There might be better games, but that's not what this about. 40k is very playable, you just can't play it right out of the box and expect it to be amazing.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Can you expect to win ether a MTG or WH40k game if you aren't bringing the best and most OP units/cards? NO.

In MTG there is just as much blatant imbalance as in 40k. Sometimes youll have a 2/3 with no abilities that costs 4 mana! somtimes you can get a 2/3 with flying deathtouch and life link for 2 mana! There is no question that MTG has no balance between it's own cards. Same can be said of 40k in literally hundereds of examples.

So IMO 40k = MTG

Funny, OP and luck/randomness are the exact things it seems are most often pointed to as to why 40k is a terrible tournament game. Yet MTG thrives as a tournament game and depends just as much on OP cards and is for sure "random" (drawing cards from a deck is the definition of random). Of course in MTG you can somewhat control the randomness by minimizing the deck size.

I still love 40k for tournament play to casual play it's mainly the people that make it unbearable. Don't get me wrong I have a great group I play with no major cheese lists and largely fluff oriented. Yes when we go to tournaments we want to win so use the cheese list winning their matters. The thing that bothers me is when you want a casual game and the other player can't turn tournament mode off!!! I play with fully painted armies but the guys Or girls im talking about just throw a sea of grey at you! Cmon at least base that gak!

Loborocket wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Can you expect to win ether a MTG or WH40k game if you aren't bringing the best and most OP units/cards? NO.

In MTG there is just as much blatant imbalance as in 40k. Sometimes youll have a 2/3 with no abilities that costs 4 mana! somtimes you can get a 2/3 with flying deathtouch and life link for 2 mana! There is no question that MTG has no balance between it's own cards. Same can be said of 40k in literally hundereds of examples.

So IMO 40k = MTG

Funny, OP and luck/randomness are the exact things it seems are most often pointed to as to why 40k is a terrible tournament game. Yet MTG thrives as a tournament game and depends just as much on OP cards and is for sure "random" (drawing cards from a deck is the definition of random). Of course in MTG you can somewhat control the randomness by minimizing the deck size.

40k thrives as a tournament game if you play the most powerful combos only. It's just MTG is a cheap game where you can build your deck for under 200 bucks and play a 3-5 games in under an hour - heck you have every OP deck in a whole series for under 1000!1000$ hardly gets you started for a 1500 point 40k army and it takes over an hour to complete a turn in most cases. I think that's really the main issue that one thrives and the other gets massive droves of complaints. ie...I spent 2k$ on a bunch of units that aren't even viable - it gives you a sick feeling in your stomach if you are out to have a competitive army.

Price points give everyone access to the best cards and ability to play many games in a short amount of time to let the law of averages take over.

It's totally fine, and probably the best game it's ever been in its lifecycle.

The internet is for hate.

One thing about the game it also thrives very well on a game with friends. If you have a group of friends all going in together the game will be a lot of fun for you, also the hobby aspect too.

I have recently gotten 4 of my friends into the game all at the same time. It is a lot of fun playing and just sitting around talking about builds and units and strategies.

Watching everyone bring their armies overtime each time becoming more and more painted up has been pretty fun experience too.

This has been a pretty great experience for my group. We are pretty into the lore as well and regularly run 40k RPG's as well.

It is true that 40k isn't very well balanced for tournament play. The problem is a large portion of discussion about it online is geared for how competitive it is. How good army or unit X is against Y. Power levels and so on.
But that doesn't stop is from being really fun

40k is like the smash bros of table top games. Smash bros isn't actually very fit to be a competitive fighter game. If you look into it, every version actually has some wild imbalances, via either character stats, certain moves, items, or stages. Some characters are hard counters to others. Games like tekken or street fighter are actually better balanced for it.

But this doesn't stop smash bros from being tonnes of fun. And it will be played differently in certain groups. Noone I know plays with items on. In the last version, if a guy came over to your house and picked meta knight, you probably weren't friend any more (hyperbole). But if you wanted to get some guys together and beat the hell out of each other, it really couldn't be beat.

And that is 40k in a nutshell. A few quick house rules, and the game can be smooth and fun. Don't worry too much about the hyper competitive based complaints, unless that is your only goal.

 pwntallica wrote:
It is true that 40k isn't very well balanced for tournament play. The problem is a large portion of discussion about it online is geared for how competitive it is. How good army or unit X is against Y. Power levels and so on.
But that doesn't stop is from being really fun

40k is like the smash bros of table top games. Smash bros isn't actually very fit to be a competitive fighter game. If you look into it, every version actually has some wild imbalances, via either character stats, certain moves, items, or stages. Some characters are hard counters to others. Games like tekken or street fighter are actually better balanced for it.

But this doesn't stop smash bros from being tonnes of fun. And it will be played differently in certain groups. Noone I know plays with items on. In the last version, if a guy came over to your house and picked meta knight, you probably weren't friend any more (hyperbole). But if you wanted to get some guys together and beat the hell out of each other, it really couldn't be beat.

And that is 40k in a nutshell. A few quick house rules, and the game can be smooth and fun. Don't worry too much about the hyper competitive based complaints, unless that is your only goal.

My buds and I play Smash Bros on all random characters, and items on high. We always have a good time, and find that it pretty frustrating when our one friend shows up and tries to make into a competitive match with his one character none of us can beat( hey I never said we were GOOD at the game) and basically play that the entire time he's there because he thinks its fun.

The comparison between 40k and it is actually very apt when you consider the gameplay.

In 40k you get crazy unlikely scenarios where the lone guarsman you had survives and kills the enemy warlord, or your entire squad of terminators rolls ones on their saves. Its when that one guy shows up with nothing but Wraithknights and Scatterbikes that you find the game to be agravating.

Where the comparison falls apart is when you consider that for Smash bros matches are 5-10 minutes MAYBE and requires one guy owning a 350$ worth of game console and controllers whereas the average 40k game requires about 2hrs and pretty averagely goes 1k+ per PERSON. Which of course causes people to take it alot more seriously then they would sitting around playing a video game.

gudtymer wrote:
Ive been looking into the armies of 40k and wanting to get into the game but conflicted on the various opinions on 40k. Is 40k's balance (based on the current edition which i belive is 7th) so bad to a point where it is unplayable or is all the voiced opinions of its unbalance subjective banter? Appreciate the communities input.

40K is very playable. Anyone saying otherwise is unable to think objectively. Therefore you should call it "biased and unrealistic banter" instead of "subjective."

If you enjoy winning through your own strategy, skill, and list building then go play a different game.

If you like toning down your list to something below optimal, just so the people you play with dont whine, and so you can have a somewhat even game then go for it.

And if you play Eldar, or Necrons expect every game you win to be excused and dismissed as nothing but balance problems and unfair cheesedickery.

(The above was only partly sarcastic)

Its playable but it has problems.
Most games will start off with one person taking a hella crippling blow and playing catch up.

If you can deal with that, its playable.

Also expect the eventual nob that runs silly cheese and wombo combos.

It is unplayble in the 6th or earlier way. Before you could arrive with an army of some points and play the game, in a different store, sometimes even in a different country. I played in germany and I don't even speak german.
Right now two stores can have drasticly different rules, which is imo a good sign how not finished the game actualy is. If people have to write rules, not to make the game more fun, but to make the basic rules actualy work, something is wrong.

gudtymer wrote:
Is 40k's balance

The simple answer is no, the game is not balanced. The more complex answer is, the game is inherently unbalanced, but with a little bit of effort and collaboration, a playgroup can balance the game by being a bit restrained with army lists, etc. The models, the setting, and a good 95% of the players you will find are great; I find this offsets the difficulties presented by a bad ruleset and units/formations that never should have made it through playtesting. If you want a game that is playable "out of the box", 40k is not for you, but otherwise jump in and you'll have some fun.

It's playable.

But there are far better games out there.

I feel like 40k is more "contentious" than it is "playable."

There is a lot of inequality between players, lists, and codices, and Games Workshop fuels that with "limited edition" offers and things designed to make everyone but a select few feel like they are missing out.

Thanks for all the great replies and comments. As far as wargame experience, Ive played warmachinehordes for about 3 and a half yrs. 40k's designs and fluff caught my attention, and after watching some videos and bat reps, the game looks really fun. Personally for me first and foremost a game has to look cool. 40k has certainly done that to me, balance comes in to help me decide if I should invest further in the army that has caught my attention. While playing competitive is fun, I too also like playing non-competitively or atleast to a point where we can tryout ridiculous things and chuckle at the outcomes. I agree with alot of you that say a game is only as great as the people you play it with, as the most important thing for me in any game is whether it is fun.

I guess what I am trying to get at is....as 40k players how would you sell the game(warhammer40k) to other wargame players? Your thoughts and comments.