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.

Something tells me no Special Snowflake means no TWC and no Wulfen. Space Wolves go back to being just Space Marines with Counter Attack and a 6th grade assignment attempt at Viking culture.
That being the case my interest would probably drift away from 40k.

 Grimgold wrote:
In the game of rock paper scissors Necrons, Tau, Eldar, Space marines and chaos demons are a kick to the groin followed by a slap in the face followed by laughter that someone wanted to play a balanced game. Sorry that was much funnier in my head...

Also Daemons are number 3 right now, so most of the list you are fighting are weaker than yours.

Most of the lists i play against are the number 1 and number 2 factions, not only that but my list while powerful isn't 100% WAAC powergaming as i like to throw in funny but not the most efficient units in my faction (like an Exalted Flamer death star and Soul Grinder spam).

So yes I would get more wins

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Pretty much.

How do you think that your current lists would fare if the game were balanced in that way?

I would get more wins with my 2++ rerollable sceamer star + 6 soul grinders list because the betters armies wouldn't better then my army

Usually, anything "star" means that you exploit combinations to get an unfair advantage. And if you're running 6 of something other than a mandatory selection, it's because it's one of the better options in your codex.

So...yeah. The competitiveness of your army would fall if the game were actually balanced, yeah?

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Pretty much.

How do you think that your current lists would fare if the game were balanced in that way?

I would get more wins with my 2++ rerollable sceamer star + 6 soul grinders list because the betters armies wouldn't better then my army

Usually, anything "star" means that you exploit combinations to get an unfair advantage. And if you're running 6 of something other than a mandatory selection, it's because it's one of the better options in your codex.

So...yeah. The competitiveness of your army would fall if the game were actually balanced, yeah?

Actually, you could run 6 of something because you want to reflect a fluffy force.
For example, a Leman Russ tank company will likely include 6 or more Leman Russ tanks, because 6 tanks is only two squadrons, and in the fluff for Imperial Tank Companies, they consist of a Command Tank and 3 full-strength Squadrons when their TO&E is filled.

So no, taking 6 of something doesn't automatically make it one of the better options in your codex.

An Air Defense Company might take 6 Hydras. Are Hydras one of the better options in the Imperial Guard codex?

Ignore this posting.

 Traditio wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

Pretty much.

How do you think that your current lists would fare if the game were balanced in that way?

I would get more wins with my 2++ rerollable sceamer star + 6 soul grinders list because the betters armies wouldn't better then my army

Usually, anything "star" means that you exploit combinations to get an unfair advantage. And if you're running 6 of something other than a mandatory selection, it's because it's one of the better options in your codex.

So...yeah. The competitiveness of your army would fall if the game were actually balanced, yeah?

I would agree

Granted I don't have that problem myself. I generally run a good mixture of units though I do spam them but that has more to do with target overload rather then because they are good.

The last game I played I ran a double CAD.

Warboss on Bike with PK and DLS
Painboy on Bike

11 Boyz with Nob/PK in Trukk
11 Boyz with Nob/PK in Trukk

6 Warbikers with Nob/PK
3 Warbikers with Nob/PK

SECOND CAD

Warboss with Eavy armor, Da Finkin Cap and PK
Painboy

18 Boyz with Nob/PK
18 Boyz with Nob/PK

9 Stormboy with Nob/PK
9 Stormboy with Nob/PK
9 Stormboy with Nob/PK

Battlewagon With Ram, 4x Rokkitz
Battlewagon With Ram, 4x Rokkitz

It was a fun game and if the game was balanced I would still run that list. And I doubt anyones going to say I am running Cheesey Orks when im using Stormboyz

The Orks have a versatile army, and if they were point-efficient a TAC Ork list would be frightening. If we make the assumption that the Orks get balanced with point reductions, there would be a lot of them on the field.

Would such an army actually be "balanced?" Grav-less marines might say "no". Against Tau, foot-orks would still trip over themselves getting to the front, so they wouldn't be much better. But if boyz were 4 and battlewaggons 75, heaven help the Tau.

jup my orks would be really scary if they where as point efficient as they used to be in 5th.

My Inq army might just be an outright cheese fest due to all the obscure rules and untits

I play an odd ork walker list that resists most firepower since its all AV 13/13/12 and to get to the rear arc they are normally close enough to assault. It fairs well now and would do better if things were more balanced. Of course I never would have dreamed it up if that were the case. It was made to mess with some eldar players heads since all the S6 shooting in the world wont down 3 gorkanauts, 2 morkanauts, and buzzgobs stompa.

 cranect wrote:
I play an odd ork walker list that resists most firepower since its all AV 13/13/12 and to get to the rear arc they are normally close enough to assault. It fairs well now and would do better if things were more balanced. Of course I never would have dreamed it up if that were the case. It was made to mess with some eldar players heads since all the S6 shooting in the world wont down 3 gorkanauts, 2 morkanauts, and buzzgobs stompa.

LMAO, that is such a terrible list against any other faction

I love it though, it completely removes most of your opponents army from the game

SemperMortis wrote:

 cranect wrote:
I play an odd ork walker list that resists most firepower since its all AV 13/13/12 and to get to the rear arc they are normally close enough to assault. It fairs well now and would do better if things were more balanced. Of course I never would have dreamed it up if that were the case. It was made to mess with some eldar players heads since all the S6 shooting in the world wont down 3 gorkanauts, 2 morkanauts, and buzzgobs stompa.

LMAO, that is such a terrible list against any other faction

I love it though, it completely removes most of your opponents army from the game

Yes, because a list that removes most of your army from the game is totally fun to play against.

#Sarcasm

If the game were as balanced as you seem to be implying with your poll question, Traditio, it wouldn't matter what I bring, so whether or not I run my current army list is a moot point. You seem to be implying that any army list should fare equally well against any other army list. If it were that way, the game would be very bland. Seems to me you want a bland game where the dice do most of the work. Might I recommend you take up Yahtzee or something, since you seem to dislike so much about 40k?

Wanting a game to be balanced is not in and of itself a bad thing, but the kind of balance you seem to want would negate any strategy of list building. I agree that 40k has issues, some of them quite glaring, but what you would propose would take most of the flavor out of it. Sure it'd be more balanced, but where's the fun if you can just take a random assortment of models and win with it instead of actually having to think out what units you should take and what you will do with them? Not to mention that the level of balance you want is probably impossible to achieve.

Seriously, though, if you don't want force composition to matter to winning, you should really take up chess, checkers, Chinese checkers, maybe Stratego, or something of that nature. 40k just ain't your scene.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
If the game were as balanced as you seem to be implying with your poll question, Traditio, it wouldn't matter what I bring, so whether or not I run my current army list is a moot point.

Nowhere in the OP or in this thread did I make that claim.

You seem to be implying that any army list should fare equally well against any other army list.

Nope. Didn't make that claim.

If it were that way, the game would be very bland. Seems to me you want a bland game where the dice do most of the work. Might I recommend you take up Yahtzee or something, since you seem to dislike so much about 40k?

Because if you can't auto-win with your list-build, then it's automatically just a matter of luck, apparently? Because apparently, actual in-game decisions don't and shouldn't matter.

Go figure.

And note how you utterly failed to answer the OP. Congrats on that.

Yeah actually I can see the merit of this poll. The question is "do you think your army is OP?" But veiled; I imagine the premise is that people who play OP armies don't believe their armies are OP, so if their armies were nerfed (or other armies buffed) they would suddenly start losing more games.

Or something.

 Grimgold wrote:
I love honesty test, and I see I'm the only one who selected I might win less. Really? No one plays eldar, marines, tau or summoning demon hordes? I'm on a 20 game win streak, that would be much harder to accomplish with a codex that was simply middling (like say straight dark angels or orks). I'd like to think I'm a decent player, but having a codex north of the balance point is also very helpful. If all codices were equal I should have lost some on bad rolls alone, or had an opponent better able to capitalize on a mistake I made and pull a win out. This entire threads theme is "My codex is fine, you guys are the problem".

This guy gets it.

This is difficult to answer because the terms for what balance is are not set. Ask 20 people how to best balance 40k and you will get 20 different answers. Having said that, I'll do my best to answer. I voted for "pretty much the same" largely because my gaming group is older and we communicate before games. No one likes lopsided games so we all do are best to accommodate that. Whether it's bring our A-game for someone to practice their tournament list, or having a toned down list because we are in a casual mood. We like our games even and the results not predetermined, re-balancing the game wouldn't change this.

 Traditio wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I love honesty test, and I see I'm the only one who selected I might win less. Really? No one plays eldar, marines, tau or summoning demon hordes? I'm on a 20 game win streak, that would be much harder to accomplish with a codex that was simply middling (like say straight dark angels or orks). I'd like to think I'm a decent player, but having a codex north of the balance point is also very helpful. If all codices were equal I should have lost some on bad rolls alone, or had an opponent better able to capitalize on a mistake I made and pull a win out. This entire threads theme is "My codex is fine, you guys are the problem".

This guy gets it.

The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

CrownAxe wrote:The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

That's not necessarily true. If your army list is internally unbalanced, then you'd actually be at a disadvantage if the game were actually balanced.

And even so:

Are you that much better than your regular opponents? What about random other people who aren't you regular opponents?

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I love honesty test, and I see I'm the only one who selected I might win less. Really? No one plays eldar, marines, tau or summoning demon hordes? I'm on a 20 game win streak, that would be much harder to accomplish with a codex that was simply middling (like say straight dark angels or orks). I'd like to think I'm a decent player, but having a codex north of the balance point is also very helpful. If all codices were equal I should have lost some on bad rolls alone, or had an opponent better able to capitalize on a mistake I made and pull a win out. This entire threads theme is "My codex is fine, you guys are the problem".

This guy gets it.

The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

^^
This. So much this. Although luck would also be a factor (more perhaps than in current 40k).

A better question would be "If the game was more balanced what models would you run? Instead of having to run the powerful units." If the game was completely balanced (impossible) winning would come down to who went first or who rolled dice better.

Plus if the only reason you play is to win games then this hobby has a very narrow scope for you to enjoy it.

ZergSmasher wrote:This. So much this. Although luck would also be a factor (more perhaps than in current 40k).

Did Age of Sigmar have that effect on fantasy?

 Traditio wrote:

CrownAxe wrote:The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

That's not necessarily true. If your army list is internally unbalanced, then you'd actually be at a disadvantage if the game were actually balanced.

And even so:

Are you that much better than your regular opponents? What about random other people who aren't you regular opponents?

Since my regular opponents are some of the top players in 40k, yes i'm pretty sure i'll do fine against random people

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I love honesty test, and I see I'm the only one who selected I might win less. Really? No one plays eldar, marines, tau or summoning demon hordes? I'm on a 20 game win streak, that would be much harder to accomplish with a codex that was simply middling (like say straight dark angels or orks). I'd like to think I'm a decent player, but having a codex north of the balance point is also very helpful. If all codices were equal I should have lost some on bad rolls alone, or had an opponent better able to capitalize on a mistake I made and pull a win out. This entire threads theme is "My codex is fine, you guys are the problem".

This guy gets it.

The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

How about this, You can be grey knights and I'll run a gladius with skyhammer, surely your superior skill would mulch me right? Seriously, it's like arguing that all of your racing wins are skill when you have a F1 car and your opponents have to drive a prius. yes, yes, skill matters, but at high levels of skill, list matters more, which is what ITC consistently shows.

 TheWizard wrote:
A better question would be "If the game was more balanced what models would you run? Instead of having to run the powerful units." If the game was completely balanced (impossible) winning would come down to who went first.

Plus if the only reason you play is to win games then this hobby has a very narrow scope for you to enjoy it.

I think you just won the thread, especially with the last sentence.

Part of why my answer disappointed the OP was because I didn't understand the question properly (to be honest I still don't think I do ). Maybe I'm just tired or something. Nearly all of the alternative questions put forth by other posters have made a lot more sense and would have worked better as the poll question.

 Grimgold wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

 Traditio wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
I love honesty test, and I see I'm the only one who selected I might win less. Really? No one plays eldar, marines, tau or summoning demon hordes? I'm on a 20 game win streak, that would be much harder to accomplish with a codex that was simply middling (like say straight dark angels or orks). I'd like to think I'm a decent player, but having a codex north of the balance point is also very helpful. If all codices were equal I should have lost some on bad rolls alone, or had an opponent better able to capitalize on a mistake I made and pull a win out. This entire threads theme is "My codex is fine, you guys are the problem".

This guy gets it.

The army you are playing isn't the only factor in determining a winner. If I'm a better player then my opponent, i should still win my games against that opponent even if the the lists were suddenly balanced against each other

How about this, You can be grey knights and I'll run a gladius with skyhammer, surely your superior skill would mulch me right? Seriously, it's like arguing that all of your racing wins are skill when you have a F1 car and your opponents have to drive a prius. yes, yes, skill matters, but at high levels of skill, list matters more, which is what ITC consistently shows.

Except the hypothetical question we are discussing is assuming that 40k is a balanced game so GK vs Gladius+Skyhammer would be a fair match and then it would primarily come down to player skill which is what I'm talking about. Please pay attention to the conversation before butting in.

 Traditio wrote:

ZergSmasher wrote:This. So much this. Although luck would also be a factor (more perhaps than in current 40k).

Did Age of Sigmar have that effect on fantasy?

You can't really compare AoS to WHFB. They are two different games that happen to use some of the same models. And yes, I suspect from what I've read about the AoS rules, luck is perhaps even more of a factor in AoS than WHFB. Don't quote me on that; I haven't read many batreps of AoS to confirm it. I might be wrong.

 ZergSmasher wrote:

 TheWizard wrote:
A better question would be "If the game was more balanced what models would you run? Instead of having to run the powerful units." If the game was completely balanced (impossible) winning would come down to who went first.

Plus if the only reason you play is to win games then this hobby has a very narrow scope for you to enjoy it.

I think you just won the thread, especially with the last sentence.

Part of why my answer disappointed the OP was because I didn't understand the question properly (to be honest I still don't think I do ). Maybe I'm just tired or something. Nearly all of the alternative questions put forth by other posters have made a lot more sense and would have worked better as the poll question.

My question is very simple:

Suppose that the game were actually balanced. What do I mean by "balanced"? That you couldn't point to a unit or option in your codex, or a set of units or options in your codex, and say: "Clearly, THIS is the one to use." What if every unit and every option in every single codex were actually playable and actually had a viable in-game use?

What would happen if, suddenly, simply spamming the "best" things in your codex no longer gauranteed you an advantage, and actually HURT you in game because it means that your army is running with a severe internal imbalance?

Would you, you personally, with the army lists that YOU currently use....would you win more games? Lose more games? Or win about the same number of games?

 Traditio wrote:
My question is very simple:

Suppose that the game were actually balanced. What do I mean by "balanced"? That you couldn't point to a unit or option in your codex, or a set of units or options in your codex, and say: "Clearly, THIS is the one to use." What if every unit and every option in every single codex were actually playable and actually had a viable in-game use?

What would happen if, suddenly, simply spamming the "best" things in your codex no longer gauranteed you an advantage, and actually HURT you in game because it means that your army is running with a severe internal imbalance?

Would you, you personally, with the army lists that YOU currently use....would you win more games? Lose more games? Or win about the same number of games?

Much better!
And I'd have to say now that I understand it (too bad I already voted), that I *might* win fewer games, although I win few enough as it is. I've never been a spammy player, but I do love my Ravenwing and often take 60-70% bikes in my DA lists. Even my Tau lists don't spam a lot of the OP units (I only own one each of Riptide, Ghostkeel and Stormsurge), so really it probably wouldn't change much. Same story with my KhorneKin.

CrownAxe wrote:Since my regular opponents are some of the top players in 40k, yes i'm pretty sure i'll do fine against random people

Either you exclusively play at grand tournaments, or else, someone has a very high opinion of himself and his gaming group.

I'm saying your list is a huge factor in the number of games you win, depending on the skill of your opponents it could be the deciding factor.

Your list is OP, the question is would you win less if it were balanced, so it's basically asking if your list was nerfed to ork levels would you win less, and literally the only intellectually honest answer is yes. I just don't get you skill is the only factor people, not only do you have to ignore huge piles of data to the contrary, you have to assume you are several st devs out of the normal range to support your win loss ratio.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, given what a well known phenomenon Illusory superiority is.