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.

Hello guys,

As all of you know Blood Bowl has a few teams which are designed to be subpar when compared to other teams and the game developers made that crystal clear from the very beginning. Such teams have either few different players or lack in proper skills and stats. Examples would be Ogres, Goblins and Halflings.

The reasoning behind this is to give experienced players either a challenge by fielding them and/or give an opposing beginner a chance at winning. Another one would be of course a desire to own those wacky models in the first place.

Just recently I wondered if something like a subpar faction also existed in 40K. Synonyms for such armies would be a NPC army which would have very low chances at winning no matter how you would write the army list. The only armies which came to mind were all in 2nd:

1. Daemon World
2. Chaos Cult
3. Genestealer Cult

The first army was in essence a WHFB Chaos army ported into 40K. So you would have chaos warriors in plate armour on foot or mounted, trolls, minotaurs, beastmen, etc. Ranged weapons were... scarce. Lol!

The second army consisted of cultists and beastmen. That's it.

The third army is known to everybody now but back in the day it had few unit options.

Please be aware that 2nd worked with an ally system which allowed a certain percentage of other units to be included in most armies. This meant you could bolster armies to a slight degree.


So would you still play or start a faction in 40K, if GW would either change them or design them from scratch to be subpar? Such a design decision would not be hidden and everybody would be aware of it from the get-go.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Such a design decision would not be hidden and everybody would be aware of it from the get-go.

This bit is absolutely crucial - I'd be fine in principle with having hardmode factions, but it needs to be telegraphed.

It wouldn't work with 40k.
The deliberately "bad" teams in BB are there as a joke within a joke. The entire game is based in a world where all conflict was solved by the god Nuffle (NFL) getting everyone to play hyper-violent American Football. It's fine to have silly teams when the entire game is silly.

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just recently I wondered if something like a subpar faction also existed in 40K. Synonyms for such armies would be a NPC army which would have very low chances at winning no matter how you would write the army list

The original 2nd edition sisters of battle codex came with a note at the start of the army list section stating that the faction got weaker as the points went up due to their lack of heavy support options, etc, and suggested buying more allies.
A number of other factions were written from an allied perspective, from the Witch Hunter and Daemonhunter books of 3e to the current inquisition.

In terms of an 'NPC' type faction the one that springs to mind would be the 3e 'Advarsaries' mini-codex. They formed a kind of side-army that could be added to another army with their own HQ and troops choices to play traitor guard and similar.
They also had one of the more devastating (if circumstantial) psychic powers in the game - an Ld check to activate and a unit of your choice within 12" immediately fought a round of combat against itself. Amusingly you could normally only take them against Sisters of Battle who were just about the worst army point for point in close combat against themselves, leading to much hair pulling and little actual injury.

 Gert wrote:
It wouldn't work with 40k.
The deliberately "bad" teams in BB are there as a joke within a joke. The entire game is based in a world where all conflict was solved by the god Nuffle (NFL) getting everyone to play hyper-violent American Football. It's fine to have silly teams when the entire game is silly.

The 40k Community has a large vocal group of people who love winning and are utterly obsessed with efficiency and power levels. An intentionally poor army would be viewed as a pointless wasted release and there'd be vocal backlash at GW for an army not being competitive.

I don't think GW should release any armies that are intentionally bad. I do like winning, though am not a tournament player, but it just seems like they'd be better off putting effort into making EVERYTHING reasonably well-balanced, as best they can.

Plus, given GW's track record on balance, they'd either overshoot and make the army so bad it's not hard mode, it's impossible; or there would be some broken interactions that would actually make them super powerful, within some niches.

Personally, I like underdog armies; I played GSC in 2nd. I like Inquisition and SoS in 8th and 9th.

It would be cool if Imperial Agents had rules for working with each other, rather than merely working with other factions. A full IA dex is the dream, but a few changes to the IA rules and the Inquisition's Imperial Authority rule could go a long way.

It's called "playing a xenos army".

40k is a subpar faction

 Sim-Life wrote:
It's called "playing a xenos army".

Funny, Dark Eldars are top of the pack at the moment and prior to that Eldars and Tau have enjoyed some long stretch of domination. Even Necrons had a few good years. Competitively speaking, Xenos are generally doing fine. It's model wise they aren't too well, but since 9th started, Xenos have enjoyed some support.

The "underdog armies" in 40k aren't there because there's a deliberate fluff or gameplay reason to have an underdog army, so much as because they're armies GW couldn't be bothered to give real updates to.

A.T. wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:
Just recently I wondered if something like a subpar faction also existed in 40K. Synonyms for such armies would be a NPC army which would have very low chances at winning no matter how you would write the army list

The original 2nd edition sisters of battle codex came with a note at the start of the army list section stating that the faction got weaker as the points went up due to their lack of heavy support options, etc, and suggested buying more allies.
A number of other factions were written from an allied perspective, from the Witch Hunter and Daemonhunter books of 3e to the current inquisition.

In terms of an 'NPC' type faction the one that springs to mind would be the 3e 'Advarsaries' mini-codex. They formed a kind of side-army that could be added to another army with their own HQ and troops choices to play traitor guard and similar.
They also had one of the more devastating (if circumstantial) psychic powers in the game - an Ld check to activate and a unit of your choice within 12" immediately fought a round of combat against itself. Amusingly you could normally only take them against Sisters of Battle who were just about the worst army point for point in close combat against themselves, leading to much hair pulling and little actual injury.

Good catch. I remember those rules fondly but have forgotten about them initially.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gert wrote:
It wouldn't work with 40k.
The deliberately "bad" teams in BB are there as a joke within a joke. The entire game is based in a world where all conflict was solved by the god Nuffle (NFL) getting everyone to play hyper-violent American Football. It's fine to have silly teams when the entire game is silly.

If you want to look for "silly" in the 40K universe, you will find it pretty easily. Here are a few examples:

- SM chapter named Ultramarines.
- SM chapter named Rainbow Warriors.
- The entire Ork faction.
- Published Imperial propaganda pamphlets which were used during 3rd to illustrate how awful life is in the Imperium.

Where was the Adversaries mini-codex, was that in the codex Witch Hunters book or something?

 Strg Alt wrote:
If you want to look for "silly" in the 40K universe, you will find it pretty easily. Here are a few examples:
- SM chapter named Rainbow Warriors.

One of the better jokes in the rogue trader book IMO.

 ph34r wrote:
Where was the Adversaries mini-codex, was that in the codex Witch Hunters book or something?

Yes, though you need the actual book, not the free pdf version that GW gave away.
Page 39 onwards - rogue psyker, apostate cardinal, mutants, and traitors.

I thought the theory was that that all armies in 40K are balanced but GW aren’t very good at getting the balance.

I think some armies should be more difficult to play as long as more difficult means more of a challenge and more fun.

The idea of flop armies isn’t a good idea why spend all that money building a flop army.

I’d rather see GW release proper indexes for kitbash armies like Fallen, Traitor Guard chaos cults, dark mechanicum and so on. Probably these wouldn’t be so competitive but good for narrative play

 Strg Alt wrote:
If you want to look for "silly" in the 40K universe, you will find it pretty easily. Here are a few examples:

- SM chapter named Ultramarines.
- SM chapter named Rainbow Warriors.
- The entire Ork faction.
- Published Imperial propaganda pamphlets which were used during 3rd to illustrate how awful life is in the Imperium.

I knew someone would do a "well, actually" eventually.
Yes, 40k has silly things in it, especially older material but it is not a silly setting. You don't have Space Marines and T'au playing tennis as the primary mode of conflict.
The difference is between the comedic setting of Blood Bowl and the semi-serious Grimdark setting of 40k. There can and should be humour in 40k but it is not the primary goal of the setting, unlike Blood Bowl.
But you knew that already.

 ph34r wrote:
Where was the Adversaries mini-codex, was that in the codex Witch Hunters book or something?

GK had an old codex, where it had rules that allowed the opponent to make their leader possessed by a demon, even if they weren't playing an actual chaos army.

mrFickle wrote:
I thought the theory was that that all armies in 40K are balanced but GW aren’t very good at getting the balance.

I think some armies should be more difficult to play as long as more difficult means more of a challenge and more fun.

The idea of flop armies isn’t a good idea why spend all that money building a flop army.

I’d rather see GW release proper indexes for kitbash armies like Fallen, Traitor Guard chaos cults, dark mechanicum and so on. Probably these wouldn’t be so competitive but good for narrative play

Why spent money on a flop army?

I have spent money on such an army in the past. It was an O&G Appendix army namely Night Goblins. Apart from a single giant it consisted only of night goblins and squigs.

How many times did I win with it? Not more than 50% of all battles but I surely had more fun than my opponent. Though one thing needs to be mentioned. My regular opponent knew obviously in advance that I brought the goblins along and so he wouldn't field the absolute best which his collection had to offer.

A game is after all a social contract though this pearl of wisdom isn't privy to a lot of people these days.

mrFickle wrote:

The idea of flop armies isn’t a good idea why spend all that money building a flop army.

Narrative, fun, the challenge.....
For example I have a specific tyranid list built that, though it'd rate 100% for "Narrative", it's objectively terrible by any metric you could use.
I'm 99.9999% certain to lose any game I play with it.
The only way(s) it MIGHT win is if:
1) we set some alternate victory conditions.
Or
2) my opponent is stupid AND the whole game consists of fluke dice rolls.

Why'd I build it? Why do I (occasionally) play it?
Purely Narrative reasons.
Plus the fun/challenge of seeing if I can get it to work playwise. (Working =/= winning btw)

* Looks over at Servants of the Abyss, Gellerpox Infected, and >50 Sisters of Silence *

...ahh...

I don't think sub-par factions are needed, just because you can make a fun, fluffy, sub-par list with any faction if you want to - but I can't raise any objections to them existing.

Some of those races that the Tau have absorbed could make good mini-armies, and good allys, for example.

the problem with subpar factions like this in 40k is they're not cheap, a blood bowl team, as I understand it is quite small. a 40k army, can easily run you over 2000 dollars

I don't think GW needs to release any "intentionally bad" armies as they are doing a fine job of that with many existing armies.

Also those already exist... in Legends.

Racerguy180 wrote:
40k is a subpar faction

Why arent this black knight comments moderated to oblivion???


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with subpar factions like this in 40k is they're not cheap, a blood bowl team, as I understand it is quite small. a 40k army, can easily run you over 2000 dollars

Paying 2000€ for having a quarantee defeat against WAAC gamers would definitly be a legit BDSM experience.

GW needs to care for all the potential costumers of the "Warhammer Hobby".

BrianDavion wrote:
the problem with subpar factions like this in 40k is they're not cheap, a blood bowl team, as I understand it is quite small. a 40k army, can easily run you over 2000 dollars

This. There is a huge difference in buying, painting and playing a 40€ team of ~15 miniatures for gaks and giggles in a 30 minute game of getting crunched and doing the same with a 300€+ army made up of a hundred miniatures over multiple hours.

Given the cost of a 40k army the much better approach is to balance things properly in the first place rather than giving yourself a get-out-of-jail-free card by labelling something as underpowered. I'd also have very little faith that GW could get that labelling correct most of the time even if they did try it.

Vatsetis wrote:

Racerguy180 wrote:
40k is a subpar faction

Why arent this black knight comments moderated to oblivion???

Clearly black knighting is the preferred type of content on this page.

Paying 2000€ for having a quarantee defeat against WAAC gamers would definitly be a legit BDSM experience.

Doesn't even need to be a WAAC army. I could probably randomly generate an army from my ork collection and utterly curb-stomp a R&H player with it.

SURE but their is extra pleasure when the WAAC metachasser rules layer gets a ludicgasm when erasing the "official underdog" list in one single turn.

Itsnt that the Munchkin paradise? ... It would surely count for 40K stats and the like.

Vatsetis wrote:


Paying 2000€ for having a quarantee defeat against WAAC gamers would definitly be a legit BDSM experience.

GW needs to care for all the potential costumers of the "Warhammer Hobby".

I mean I do own an over 2000pt all-grots ork army, that's essentially as close to that experience as you can actually get.

Theyre also the 'joke, designated loser' faction in AOS! The way GW likes to convey models that are 'just for fun' is that they give them no rules, no abilities, no weapons and then they massively overcost them and go "haha, isn't this funny? Aren't you having fun? Look, we're making you pay the same points as a chaos cultist, but we're only giving you a laspistol, downgrading your weapon skill to 5, your leadership to 4 and your strength to 2, and also you don't even get an armor save if you're outside of cover! WE EVEN TOOK AWAY YOUR OBSEC SO YOU CANT SECURE OBJECTIVES HAHAHAHAHA ISNT THAT HILARIOUS? you know, because the fluff is that orks dont care about objectives so they usually send grots to do that job which is why theyre troops choices in the first place, that was the fluff, but we got rid of it because it's so goddamn funny!!!"