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.
Redundancy is one thing, and you sometimes need multiples just so the unit does its darn job - like troops. IG squads are useless in ones or twos. If you're going to bring troops at all with IG, you should be bringing 40+ in all realisticness.
Also, is one large blob a spam? I'm thinking 1-2x 30 Ork Boyz. Which is a fluffy and necessary part of any good Ork army.
I don't much like armies that avoid spam at all costs, because they end up being a scatterbrained mess of things that don't fit together.
Company Commander
IG Squad (10 men)
Conscript Squad (20 men)
Sentinel Sqn (3 walkers)
Valkyrie
Leman Russ Battle Tank
Manticore
The above is a possible kind of list that avoids any definition of spam, and I hate it with a vengeance.
People won't like it when my list consists of a Pask Battle Tank, a Tank Commander Vanquisher, a Punisher, a Exterminator, a Deathstrike, a Basilisk, a Manticore, a Wyvern, and a Shadowsword. It's spam even though there isn't a single repeated unit in the list, because it consists entirely of a single kind of target. The list above isn't a good list by any margin, but people won't want to play it because it's a list that renders over half their army ineffective, and it's hard to kill. Because it has no infantry targets, the approximately 60% of an army that consists of weapons optimized for infantry-killing are mostly ineffective against it. This was why, even though Knights and the Armored Battlegroup were kind of weak last edition, they weren't whole lot of fun to play against, because the majority of your all-comers' list has nothing to do.
I'd also point out that people don't generally have a problem with the repetition of fragile units, unless they're really, really good, so I think the "problem" with "spam lists" has to do with how you perceive yourself as faring against them. If your entire army is able to kill 1 or 2 out of 9 tanks a turn, you don't feel like you made a difference the same way you feel if you killed 1 or 2 tanks and 1 or 2 infantry squads out of 4 tanks and 6 infantry squads, and therefore you have less fun. In addition, when all the units are identical, it doesn't feel like you're affecting their strategy for killing one unit off, because they have 4 more just like it. You might actually be winning, but you don't feel like you affected their strategy
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Spam has always been a viable "tactic" both in reality and in war-games.
I have heard many times the cry for "Boys before toys!" at least in regards to Orks! (never mind soviets during WW2).
I would also add however, just like anything in real life: too much of ANYTHING can be toxic.
Spam can be healthy if it gets players to invest in a good quantity of basic troop types that can act as the core for dabbling with other unit types to make the game interesting.
I admit that it would seem very odd for Imperial Guard, Orks or Tyranids to not have close to 100 basic troop models
Maybe that is just me.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
I think it also depend on the player, it can even be a weapon.
I have a 'SPAM' List I play with, it has only two Repeated Squads, 2 Tactical Squads and 2 Devastator Squads along with a mix of others, but what is being SPAMMED is Plasma Weapons, at my last count it was 37 counting the Plasma Guns, Plasma Pistols, Plasma Cannons and Combi-Plasmas. I have been playing a list similar to this since 2nd Edition.
I know some people look at this and roll their eyes, so I don't take it out every game. Just like I don't take out my 6x Grey Hunter List often. Part of the reason is so others can take a break from it and the other, it can get boring on my part.
I also have a friend that does not have a budget to buy a lot of things, so him taking his 4 Tactical Squads with a Razorbacks for each game is ok, because that is what he has.
Melissia wrote: and you don't really care, so you're wasting my time.
Wow is it really all about you?
Is this incessant whining about "spam" all about you, then? People are saying "Spam armies are ugly!" and I'm disagreeing. If you don't like my opinions you're free to ignore or dispute them. Fact remains, I find "one of each kind of unit" armies ugly and lazy.
Your "solution" remains a non-solution. There's no problem here that your "solution" would fix, so why do you keep pushing it, out of blind nostalgia?
I'm with Melissa on this one.
Armies where all of the squads are differently equipped and there's one of each vehicle type aren't "immersive" or "fluffy". Quite the contrary, they make no sense and are often ugly.
Couldn't agree more with Selym, Melissia, and Scott-S6. I don't think I've seen a universal definition of spam anyways, and the 'highlander' armies look awful to me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with spam, and I in fact move to change the name to something more appropriate; redundancy.
If you have a problem with multiple, overpowered units, then your issue is with the balance of those units, not that there's 3 of them. No one cares if I put down 6 scout sentinels. The issue isn't the redundancy, its the balance. Focus on the issue, not the symptom.
Redundancy is fluffy, logical, thematic, tactical, and looks fething good.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
mondo80 wrote: Oh get it! It's because Space Marines have a max squad size of ten per unit and they don't have much in the way of countering 20 to 30 model size groups of disposable units.
...they're called stock Centurion Devastators backed up by a Primaris Rhino and/or a Captain.
I have.....Sorceror Lords, Rubricae, Tzaangor and Scarab Occult as my unique units. Plus of course Magnus and Ahriman should needs must.
My army is comprised entirely of said same units. Is that spam? I mean, I can pack an awful lot of Smites of varying potency into a given list, and Mortal Wounds are pretty damned saucy, especially for an army with few reliable Anti Tank options.
At what points does a particular theme become spam?
As someone who plays admech I feel you. It's very difficult for me to avoid spam in the first place, given my army has 16 units total, and building a competitive list cuts those options down even further. The fact I'm also one of the few armies discouraged to mix and match due to how canticles function doesn't help.
My army basically drops over half it's points into rangers with the sniper arquebus and onagers with the anti air array, to counter the major sources of spam in my local meta.
Unrelated: Where does it say you can only attempt to use a psychic ability once per turn? Best I can find you can attempt them once per turn per psyker that knows it.
Its under the battleforged rules in the main rulebook. Smite is the exception.
So...it's NOT under the psychic phase rules?
Goddamnit GW. WHY IS THIS NOT ON PAGE 178????????
Seriously...can I get a page number for this? I can't find it. This is frustrating me to no end.
I mean, I'm fine with it, but if I can't find it, I know I won't be the only one, and I want to be able to point it out to people who try to cheese me with four uses of Da Jump on turn 1.
CrownAxe was correct. its page 215 of the big rulebook, in the matched play rules.
Again, I'm not doubting that it's a thing. But...why isn't something this basic on page 178?
Wake. Rise. Destroy. Conquer.
We have done so once. We will do so again.
Blacksails wrote: Couldn't agree more with Selym, Melissia, and Scott-S6. I don't think I've seen a universal definition of spam anyways, and the 'highlander' armies look awful to me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with spam, and I in fact move to change the name to something more appropriate; redundancy.
If you have a problem with multiple, overpowered units, then your issue is with the balance of those units, not that there's 3 of them. No one cares if I put down 6 scout sentinels. The issue isn't the redundancy, its the balance. Focus on the issue, not the symptom.
Redundancy is fluffy, logical, thematic, tactical, and looks fething good.
So, Eldar armies with a bunch of different Aspect Warrior squads, some guardians, some jetbikes, a wraithlord and some war walkers are out then. . .
I get the desire for "sameness", and thats how I usually play. But theres always an exception. Besides, variety is the spice of life, can't we agree that variety of army styles is fine too?
Blacksails wrote: Couldn't agree more with Selym, Melissia, and Scott-S6. I don't think I've seen a universal definition of spam anyways, and the 'highlander' armies look awful to me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with spam, and I in fact move to change the name to something more appropriate; redundancy.
If you have a problem with multiple, overpowered units, then your issue is with the balance of those units, not that there's 3 of them. No one cares if I put down 6 scout sentinels. The issue isn't the redundancy, its the balance. Focus on the issue, not the symptom.
Redundancy is fluffy, logical, thematic, tactical, and looks fething good.
So, Eldar armies with a bunch of different Aspect Warrior squads, some guardians, some jetbikes, a wraithlord and some war walkers are out then. . .
I get the desire for "sameness", and thats how I usually play. But theres always an exception. Besides, variety is the spice of life, can't we agree that variety of army styles is fine too?
I think it's according to the army. As a guard player, it really goes against the fluff not to spam since regiments are typically one type of unit (infantry, armor, mech, ect.) On the other hand, Scatterbikes and Riptides almost broke 7th by themselves. Eldar armies make sense fluff wise to be more diverse.
I hate that someone can bring something like 8 stormravens nowadays, and call it a list...its boring garbage and takes 0 imagination to play.
Bedouin Dynasty: 10000 pts
The Silver Lances: 4000 pts
The Custodes Winter Watch 4000 pts
MajorStoffer wrote:
...
Sternguard though, those guys are all about kicking ass. They'd chew bubble gum as well, but bubble gum is heretical. Only tau chew gum.
iGuy91 wrote: I hate that someone can bring something like 8 stormravens nowadays, and call it a list...its boring garbage and takes 0 imagination to play.
Hard to argue with that. I don't play competitive, so I might just decide to not play if somebody showed up to play me with a garbage "list" like that.
Real militaries are operated by extreme WAACTFG's, whose idea of "fun" is to curbstop the enemy into oblivion with as little effort as possible. OTOH, it proves that spam is realistic.
And they get crushed by armies that employ combined-arms tactics. 'Spam' in the real world is the sign of a poorly trained force (admittedly, an awful lot of armies fall into this category). Waves of tanks or infantry attacking unsupported get annihilated by balanced forces every time.
Unless you're taking a literal view of a company of tanks (20 or so vehicles) being present on the battlefield at once and fighting as a cohesive unit, then translating that over to 40K on a one-for-one basis and calling both 'spam.' That would be rather foolish, as ideally that company of tanks would also have a company of infantry, a company of heavy weapons, and a battalion of artillery in support, to say nothing of air support - all of which would be present on the same battle at the same time, fighting in concert.
I have no particular objections to 'spam' in 40K but pointing to the real world for evidence seems like a slender reed.
Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill
And they get crushed by armies that employ combined-arms tactics. 'Spam' in the real world is the sign of a poorly trained force (admittedly, an awful lot of armies fall into this category). Waves of tanks or infantry attacking unsupported get annihilated by balanced forces every time.
Unless you're taking a literal view of a company of tanks (20 or so vehicles) being present on the battlefield at once and fighting as a cohesive unit, then translating that over to 40K on a one-for-one basis and calling both 'spam.' That would be rather foolish, as ideally that company of tanks would also have a company of infantry, a company of heavy weapons, and a battalion of artillery in support, to say nothing of air support - all of which would be present on the same battle at the same time, fighting in concert.
I have no particular objections to 'spam' in 40K but pointing to the real world for evidence seems like a slender reed.
Napoleonic-era warfare was a lot of spam.
Lemme bring my 20 or so infantry regiments with 4 cavalry regiments to meet your 17 units of artillery, 20 infantry regiments and 1 cavalry regiment. (Not realistic numbers, but you get the gist).
Selym wrote: Napoleonic-era warfare was a lot of spam.
Lemme bring my 20 or so infantry regiments with 4 cavalry regiments to meet your 17 units of artillery, 20 infantry regiments and 1 cavalry regiment. (Not realistic numbers, but you get the gist).
A French infantry regiment contained at least three distinct kinds of troops in it, and then there were specialist regiments of light or elite troops, as well as the distinctions based on where the unit was from and what sort of honors were attached to it. Cavalry was likewise divided into three broad types (heavy, medium, light) with a dizzying array of sub-types who could wear lots of armor, a little armor, or no armor; they could fight on horseback or dismounted; they could be armed with a saber, a lance, a carbine, a brace of pistols, or all of those at once. Artillery was just as diverse, again coming in three main types, and much of it was organically part of the infantry regiments and not formed in separate regiments, and mortars and rockets were different weapons altogether.
And then there were all of the diverse allied troops with their unique fighting styles, uniforms, and customs. A Croatian sharpshooter was a different thing from a British riflemen or an Austrian jaeger.
Of course Napoleonic warfare was 'spammy' (if we ignore that this is a ridiculous word to apply in context) because there is only so much variation you can get by handing a guy a black powder weapon and a sharp thing, but considering all of those troops to be the same is not only not true it would also be roundly rejected by contemporary soldiers. They were highly aware of the differences between different kinds of regiment and tried to accentuate them as much as possible to let one body of troops stand out from another.
Madness is however an affliction which in war carries with it the advantage of surprise - Winston Churchill
Spam is life...
Still, I'd like to see relic weapons that have a Strength characteristic until they successfully damage a unit, then wounds units with two matching keywords for the rest of the game on a 2+.
Eg. Damages a Wolf Lord on a Thunderwolf then busts up Harold or Canis on a 2+ for having Character and Thunderwolf keywords then shoots a Bloodclaw but uses the Strength characteristic since it doesn't have two matching keywords with the Bloodclaw.
Probably be cool if it could store three keywords rather than just the two needed to activate it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/19 03:03:39
I don't break the rules but I'll bend them as far as they'll go.
There are a couple of options for dealing with spam:
1. Make all units in a codex perfectly balanced with one another, resulting in a boring monotone army list.
2. Force players to use sub-optimal units in every army, removing player agency from the army-selection aspect of the game.
Otherwise competitive players who are actively trying to win will automatically choose only the optimal units. This is a problem 40k has always suffered from as a competitive game. Luckily GW always has the "durr this isn't a sport, we're just trying to sell pretty models" excuse to fall back on. The whole business model is at odds with the idea of making the game balanced and spam-proof.
Actually if units are balanced against one another, you'd have more variety in lists as people would focus on taking what they wanted to play over what's more powerful.
Balance != everything's the exact same.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
This is the list I'm thinking of starting 8th off with, as it's a good part of what I have painted to a point where they won't need much extra work. It's spam, but is it "bad spam"? I wonder what some think?
Battalion Detachment:
Devilfish w/ SMS HQ-Aun' shi
HQ-Ethereal w/ slapsticks
Devilfish w/ gun drones
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Devilfish w/ gun drones
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Devilfish w/ gun drones
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Troop-Rifle Strike Team x5 w/ ui, ml, marker drone (in fish)
Fast Attack-Piranha w/ fusion blaster
Fast Attack-Tetras x2
Heavy Support-Railhead w/ SMS Heavy Support-Railhead w/ SMS Heavy Support-Ionhead w/ gun drones
(no, I don't own a longstrike model)
Flyer-Sunshark Bomber
Auxiliary Support Detachment:
Troop-Carbine Strike Team x10 (ethereal guard)
I think this was a under points for 2K, but I may be mistaken as I deleted the original list apparently. Seeker missiles on the tanks will fill any remaining points.
Once again, just curious... "bad "spam"?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/19 06:18:03
Melissia wrote: Actually if units are balanced against one another, you'd have more variety in lists as people would focus on taking what they wanted to play over what's more powerful.
Balance != everything's the exact same.
I mean the army list as a whole would be boring and homogenous, not individual players' lists. The models would be cosmetically different, but the rules would have much less variety across the board. If there were a serious effort at balance, then improved stats and special rules would all carry an appropriate points cost so 500 points of one thing would be exactly as effective as 500 points of another thing. Sure you can say that units can be specialized toward specific rules to break the monotony, but 40k's ruleset really isn't flexible enough to make that a viable option. Fast units would have to be very weak, and tough units would have to be less mobile and more expensive. Troops who benefit from special rules and synergy would have to be priced so that bog-standard troops are equally effective on a point-for-point basis. Stand-out units like thunderhawks, unique characters and flying daemon princes and ultra-cheap units like brimstones and conscripts get spammed because they break the mold that balance enforces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The sad truth is that if 40k lists truly were balanced, the competitive scene would still be overrun by spam. Players would just spam the cheapest available models. Everyone would just be running hordes of those monopose plastic gretchin from the mid-90s, because the truth of human nature is that competitive gamers care about winning more than they care about fun.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/19 08:46:17
Blacksails wrote: Couldn't agree more with Selym, Melissia, and Scott-S6. I don't think I've seen a universal definition of spam anyways, and the 'highlander' armies look awful to me.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with spam, and I in fact move to change the name to something more appropriate; redundancy.
If you have a problem with multiple, overpowered units, then your issue is with the balance of those units, not that there's 3 of them. No one cares if I put down 6 scout sentinels. The issue isn't the redundancy, its the balance. Focus on the issue, not the symptom.
Redundancy is fluffy, logical, thematic, tactical, and looks fething good.
So, Eldar armies with a bunch of different Aspect Warrior squads, some guardians, some jetbikes, a wraithlord and some war walkers are out then. . .
I get the desire for "sameness", and thats how I usually play. But theres always an exception. Besides, variety is the spice of life, can't we agree that variety of army styles is fine too?
By out you mean that I don't like them, then yes. Other people are more than welcome to build their army the way they want. I just don't like a 1 of everything approach.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress
+Spaceship Gaming Enthusiast+
Live near Halifax, NS? Ask me about our group, the Ordo Haligonias!
Melissia wrote: Actually if units are balanced against one another, you'd have more variety in lists as people would focus on taking what they wanted to play over what's more powerful.
Balance != everything's the exact same.
I mean the army list as a whole would be boring and homogenous, not individual players' lists. The models would be cosmetically different, but the rules would have much less variety across the board. If there were a serious effort at balance, then improved stats and special rules would all carry an appropriate points cost so 500 points of one thing would be exactly as effective as 500 points of another thing. Sure you can say that units can be specialized toward specific rules to break the monotony, but 40k's ruleset really isn't flexible enough to make that a viable option. Fast units would have to be very weak, and tough units would have to be less mobile and more expensive. Troops who benefit from special rules and synergy would have to be priced so that bog-standard troops are equally effective on a point-for-point basis. Stand-out units like thunderhawks, unique characters and flying daemon princes and ultra-cheap units like brimstones and conscripts get spammed because they break the mold that balance enforces.
Homogeneity of rules =/= balance. Balance =/= homogeneity of rules.
I really wish this myth would die. It is the result of being unable to imagine balanced variety, despite the fact that such can exist. Take for example, the competing forces of life on Earth. With the exception of the extremely OP Humans, who are the only ones to have entered the new meta of consciousness, most things on Earth have struck some sort of combination of balance and function. Plants to not eradicate Trees, Trees to not eradicate Leopards, etc. Most components fit into a self-sustaining system where they perform some sort of cyclical function. Just because GW has trouble making a diverse and balanced ruleset, does not mean such is impossible.
The sad truth is that if 40k lists truly were balanced, the competitive scene would still be overrun by spam. Players would just spam the cheapest available models.
You forget that people also have a variety of stockpiled units, and often play for fluff. Only a very small % of the 40k community is truly competitive. And if everything is balanced, even competitive players would get bored of mono-lists and once in a while wander off to a GW for a new kit. Also note that "Everything is Balanced" =/= "All possible lists are viable". Because that's just not true either. Grots are not going to be able to knock out tanks, because they are a cannon fodder unit. Function and diversity is king in reality, and should be king here.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/19 11:25:26
And they get crushed by armies that employ combined-arms tactics. 'Spam' in the real world is the sign of a poorly trained force (admittedly, an awful lot of armies fall into this category). Waves of tanks or infantry attacking unsupported get annihilated by balanced forces every time.
Unless you're taking a literal view of a company of tanks (20 or so vehicles) being present on the battlefield at once and fighting as a cohesive unit, then translating that over to 40K on a one-for-one basis and calling both 'spam.' That would be rather foolish, as ideally that company of tanks would also have a company of infantry, a company of heavy weapons, and a battalion of artillery in support, to say nothing of air support - all of which would be present on the same battle at the same time, fighting in concert.
I have no particular objections to 'spam' in 40K but pointing to the real world for evidence seems like a slender reed.
I'm talking about many units being equipped similarly, not only using one kind of unit.
Melissia wrote: Actually if units are balanced against one another, you'd have more variety in lists as people would focus on taking what they wanted to play over what's more powerful.
Balance != everything's the exact same.
I mean the army list as a whole would be boring and homogenous, not individual players' lists. The models would be cosmetically different, but the rules would have much less variety across the board. If there were a serious effort at balance, then improved stats and special rules would all carry an appropriate points cost so 500 points of one thing would be exactly as effective as 500 points of another thing. Sure you can say that units can be specialized toward specific rules to break the monotony, but 40k's ruleset really isn't flexible enough to make that a viable option. Fast units would have to be very weak, and tough units would have to be less mobile and more expensive. Troops who benefit from special rules and synergy would have to be priced so that bog-standard troops are equally effective on a point-for-point basis. Stand-out units like thunderhawks, unique characters and flying daemon princes and ultra-cheap units like brimstones and conscripts get spammed because they break the mold that balance enforces.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The sad truth is that if 40k lists truly were balanced, the competitive scene would still be overrun by spam. Players would just spam the cheapest available models. Everyone would just be running hordes of those monopose plastic gretchin from the mid-90s, because the truth of human nature is that competitive gamers care about winning more than they care about fun.
No, it wouldn't. Learn what balance means. The only unit I always build as terran is the marine, because its a mineral sink that shoots up. Balance doesn't "enforce" anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/19 13:38:05
If my 502 points of Stormhammer were exactly as effective at general 40k as 502 points of gretchen or 502 points of valkyries or 502 points of carnifexes, then they might as well be the same.
It was my issue with balance before - I've been told that balance means that lists, given equal player skill, should be 50/50. So what does that mean for a conscript horde vs superheavy tanks?
I guess it does mean conscripts should be able to hurt superheavy tanks. After all, that's what we got this edition.
A good chunk of people don't want balance. They want listbuilding, which means winning the game before the game starts with a superior list. Its kind of like a deck building game. Only with super expensive models.
If my 502 points of Stormhammer were exactly as effective at general 40k as 502 points of gretchen or 502 points of valkyries or 502 points of carnifexes, then they might as well be the same.
It was my issue with balance before - I've been told that balance means that lists, given equal player skill, should be 50/50. So what does that mean for a conscript horde vs superheavy tanks?
I guess it does mean conscripts should be able to hurt superheavy tanks. After all, that's what we got this edition.
It should not mean that at all. If a "balanced" wargame just lets 502 points of Grots compete fairly against 502 points of Stormhammer, you have a bad wargame. Units ought to have FUNCTION.
Just like in real life, failing to bring an AT weapon against a tank should get you killed.
This is also why GW should have never departed from the FOC. Bringing a list of just one thing should be punished, not rewarded.
If my 502 points of Stormhammer were exactly as effective at general 40k as 502 points of gretchen or 502 points of valkyries or 502 points of carnifexes, then they might as well be the same.
It was my issue with balance before - I've been told that balance means that lists, given equal player skill, should be 50/50. So what does that mean for a conscript horde vs superheavy tanks?
I guess it does mean conscripts should be able to hurt superheavy tanks. After all, that's what we got this edition.
It should not mean that at all. If a "balanced" wargame just lets 502 points of Grots compete fairly against 502 points of Stormhammer, you have a bad wargame. Units ought to have FUNCTION.
Just like in real life, failing to bring an AT weapon against a tank should get you killed.
This is also why GW should have never departed from the FOC. Bringing a list of just one thing should be punished, not rewarded.
So how much balance is okay then? Because it's clear that armies shouldn't have a 50/50 win rate against eachother based on construction, at least in your version of balance. So what exactly does 'balanced' mean?
If my 502 points of Stormhammer were exactly as effective at general 40k as 502 points of gretchen or 502 points of valkyries or 502 points of carnifexes, then they might as well be the same.
It was my issue with balance before - I've been told that balance means that lists, given equal player skill, should be 50/50. So what does that mean for a conscript horde vs superheavy tanks?
I guess it does mean conscripts should be able to hurt superheavy tanks. After all, that's what we got this edition.
It should not mean that at all. If a "balanced" wargame just lets 502 points of Grots compete fairly against 502 points of Stormhammer, you have a bad wargame. Units ought to have FUNCTION.
Just like in real life, failing to bring an AT weapon against a tank should get you killed.
This is also why GW should have never departed from the FOC. Bringing a list of just one thing should be punished, not rewarded.
So how much balance is okay then? Because it's clear that armies shouldn't have a 50/50 win rate against eachother based on construction, at least in your version of balance. So what exactly does 'balanced' mean?
One possible form of a balanced wargame, is where:
- You are not put at an instant and serious disadvantage for being a different army than the opponent (Orks vs Tau, Nids vs Guard, DE vs Space Marines)
- Each codex's units has a viable purpose (this one is fast, this one is strong, this one is durable, this one is a jack of all but master of none...)
- Each unit is assigned a points value based on their use and expected synergies (Unit A is pointless with Units B, C and D, but perfect in unison with Units E and F, and helps counter Unit G)
- Points costs are revised over time incrementally to find the best costing for them (Unit Q was slightly undercosted in Revision 1, and then slightly overcosted in Revision 2. Time for Revision 3)
- Armies receive simultaneous codex releases, after 2-5 years of playtesting by the community
- Armies have multiple viable builds
- The game is NOT "take whatever to beat whatever"
- Players must make use of combined arms, or focus on a skill-based gimmick
- Strategy, planning and tactics all matter
- There is no "Auto-Take" anything
- You do not win at just the listbuilding level
I recognise that this is an ideal and thus incredibly difficult to do, but we can get close. If the game is designed to allow player skill to shine through, army imbalances will become a lot less important.
40k 6e-7e was almost always won at the listbuilding level. A balanced game will not allow such extremes.
Mordian Iron Guard - Major Overhaul in Progress 
10000 pts
4000 pts
