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.

Deadnight wrote:
No game based on dice rolls can ever be truly balanced.

No game can be balanced period, at least not in the way people tend to use it on here in the "perfect balance, every factions has a 50/50 win rate" form of balance. Even Chess has a slight skew to white because it gets the first turn.

But you're trying to excuse 40k because of the random nature of dice even that isn't true. War Of The Ring has dice literally dictate what actions you can take on your turn AND uses dice to determine combat and last time I checked the skew was a 56% win rate for Shadow. Saying 40k cannot be balanced is absolutely fair. There are just too many models and too many factions to make it a balanced game but this doesn't mean that GW shouldn't TRY to balance it as much as possible.

Honestly this leads back into the discussions about how to make the "Three Ways To Play" more distinct. If Matched was basically the defacto "tournament mode" GW could have a much easier time by introducing a separate, smaller/tighter army lists specifically for Matched play and leaving all the stuff not included in the Matched army lists available for Open where balance is less of a consideration. No ones models are deleted, better balance is achieved for those inclined that way, people will still complain but at least we can say "if you care about balance play Matched".

40k would be vastly more balanced than it currently is if GW wasn't actively trying to make it imbalanced. Like, we understand that is the goal state, right? nobody actually believes GW is not shooting for factions to have roughly a 55% winrate out of the gate with a new book that decays to around 40% just before a new codex comes out?

At the very least they wouldnt open every single edition with a brand new mechanic that one faction gets and nobody else gets any kind of compensation for, right? We're not seriously under the delusion that "LOL you'll get your chapter tactics and Stratagems rules when your codex comes out nerd until then eat gak" in 8e was "balanced"?

 the_scotsman wrote:


At the very least they wouldnt open every single edition with a brand new mechanic that one faction gets and nobody else gets any kind of compensation for, right?

Honestly I think unique faction mechanics can work, GW is just awful at it. They hit on some good ideas occasionally (miracle dice) but in other factions it feels like an afterthought or underutilized or they're leaning on when it worked in 4th Ed.

I truly hope that when The Old World finally launches GW took some ideas from Creative Assembly and Total War: Warhammer because some of the stuff they came up with for faction mechanics is incredibly fluffy and great mechanically.

The biggest issue for me WRT balance is that GW's business model actively discourages it (as the_scotsman has pointed out).

A game designer invested in making the game both narrative (in a fictional world) and balanced would approach the affair with a clear idea of the interactions in their head that they wish to model.

"Communications network? Nah, our wargame will handwave that."
"Kinetic force-on-force combat? Yeah, let's throw that in."
"Command and Control? Largely not but maybe with some flavor"

etc. etc.

They would also have some idea of how they want those interactions to play out (The Aeldari should achieve their victories by cunning and their plays should look short, violent, and majestic - they "love it when a plan comes together", while Imperial Guard should achieve victories by brute doggedness. Rather than make "plays" the Imperial Guard should focus on the mission and hand and show up with a willingness to pay a high price but achieve victory in the end, etc etc).

Then, with a clear picture painted of:
1) What types of mechanics are needed
2) What identities there are for factions

the game designer can build his game, ensuring the core mechanics focus on the areas he desires and the faction mechanics are minute, cost points, and nudge (don't FORCE!) the faction in the desired direction. You could even achieve faction identity through points costs (i.e. aeldari bikes are cheap, and their grav tanks are similarly priced but trade armor and firepower for speed, whilst Imperial Guard infantrymen and tanks are cheap and rugged but lack finesse and mobility by comparison).

Unfortunately, this is I think how GW used to think, but they've bought into their own universe, as it were.

The whole 40k setting used to be "balanced". In general, there were some bolter-porn/Gaunt's Ghosts type books where there were heroes and one faction was clearly the bettererestest, but the lore was (on the whole) intended to be balanced between the factions. The whole setting was pinned on a knife edge.

But now, the lore is imbalanced, and you can no longer anchor the game in the lore (even if GW were still trying that, which I believe they are not).

 Tawnis wrote:
I think you missed the point. The reason I made this post is BECAUSE the sample size is so small. That's why I'm asking people who have played far more games than I have what their experience has been. How to you get a big sample size, ask a bunch of people.

True, they aren't top tier (really looking forward to a match vs AdMech or Drukari) but even so, Blood Angels are still Space Marines and Necrons aren't exactly dumpster tier. Also... Kroot.

Let me take what I said a step further: no amount of anecdotes makes for a viable dataset.

Whether those armies are dumpster tier I guess depends on how many books you're letting in. Like the last GT wins analysis Goon did for October all four of those forces were back to back among the very worst performers. I can tell you personally I have many thousands of points of Blood Angels which are virtually always larping as White Scars these days, unless I'm really committed to breaking out the Sanguinary Guard or the Libby Dread.

Nah, I mean it's just simpler than that. GW just comes up with a blanket advantage that you get to have over the factions that don't yet have a new edition book.

and then when they're done with an edition worth of books, they put out new 'not-codexes' that also give out bonuses for no cost to various factions purely so you'll buy the book and to bump up that faction's winrate.

There's no deep-seated lore-based reason behind it, it's not them 'getting high on their own supply' it's the fact that they have so many potential units and kits to keep stocked that if they didnt control demand based on codex production they'd lose more sales due to stuff being out of stock.

They make kits for a faction when that faction's codex comes out, and if you dont make sure the codex is a strong one comparative to other factions, you will fail to make those sales.

So they build in planned obsolescence to army books. Plain and simple.Every time a new edition comes out ande you see a rule and go 'hey, that seems like it would work really really badly with X faction or X type of unit" yes. That is on purpose. that is intentional.

When the 8E thousand sons book came out, all the 7E Rubric based models had very little rules support in terms of stratagems and fancy rules comparative to the AOS units they ported over into 40k.

Then when the 9E thousand sons book came out, despite none of those AOS units being particularly in the meta at all, they handed down hefty hefty nerfs to Tzaangors, Shamans and Skyfires.

Because if you bought in with the 8e book you probably had a bunch of those units. So now they want you to buy other units.

 Tawnis wrote:

If I had the models to run 2k points, my list would add... 4 more Greater Knarlocs,

I love Kroot, and wish they had all the old models back in their range in fresh new plastic.

I was under the impression that 9th ed rules for greater Knarlocs no longer existed. Are you houseruling, or do you know something I don't?

He may have meant Great Knarlocs which are legends models.

 Ventus wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
I think you missed the point. The reason I made this post is BECAUSE the sample size is so small. That's why I'm asking people who have played far more games than I have what their experience has been. How to you get a big sample size, ask a bunch of people.

True, they aren't top tier (really looking forward to a match vs AdMech or Drukari) but even so, Blood Angels are still Space Marines and Necrons aren't exactly dumpster tier. Also... Kroot.

Let me take what I said a step further: no amount of anecdotes makes for a viable dataset.

Whether those armies are dumpster tier I guess depends on how many books you're letting in. Like the last GT wins analysis Goon did for October all four of those forces were back to back among the very worst performers. I can tell you personally I have many thousands of points of Blood Angels which are virtually always larping as White Scars these days, unless I'm really committed to breaking out the Sanguinary Guard or the Libby Dread.

As I said in the OP, this is specifically NOT in regards to tournaments and highly competitive play. I have no disillusions about the game being imbalanced at the highest levels of play. I'm talking about two people picking models from their collection that they like or feel is thematic or whatever and having a go at each other. Are the rules so badly imbalanced that even then the game is dramatically skewed, or do people actually have to work and put effort in to break it? From my experience with Kroot, no it's not, but I wanted to hear what other people had to say.

If you've had the experience at your local meta of everyone being super competitive and not being able to play your Blood Angels, that's just as anectodical as my example. As for the tournament results everyone knows and agrees on those and wasn't the point of this thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

PenitentJake wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

If I had the models to run 2k points, my list would add... 4 more Greater Knarlocs,

I love Kroot, and wish they had all the old models back in their range in fresh new plastic.

I was under the impression that 9th ed rules for greater Knarlocs no longer existed. Are you houseruling, or do you know something I don't?

Yes, using the Legends rules, since it is a casual league, it was allowed. They're actually pretty OP at 65pts IMHO.

I'm not sure how a skew list going completely undefeated at small points in a league setting on tables of indeterminate size and with legends models is evidence of "balance"

It's like saying "oh yeah, chess is more balanced than you think, we just use the play option where you flip a coin to see whether white or black goes first instead of it always being white."

Cool- didn't know they made it to Legends!

Thanks guys!

(Now if only I had some models....)

 the_scotsman wrote:
Nah, I mean it's just simpler than that. GW just comes up with a blanket advantage that you get to have over the factions that don't yet have a new edition book.

and then when they're done with an edition worth of books, they put out new 'not-codexes' that also give out bonuses for no cost to various factions purely so you'll buy the book and to bump up that faction's winrate.

There's no deep-seated lore-based reason behind it, it's not them 'getting high on their own supply' it's the fact that they have so many potential units and kits to keep stocked that if they didnt control demand based on codex production they'd lose more sales due to stuff being out of stock.

They make kits for a faction when that faction's codex comes out, and if you dont make sure the codex is a strong one comparative to other factions, you will fail to make those sales.

So they build in planned obsolescence to army books. Plain and simple.Every time a new edition comes out ande you see a rule and go 'hey, that seems like it would work really really badly with X faction or X type of unit" yes. That is on purpose. that is intentional.

When the 8E thousand sons book came out, all the 7E Rubric based models had very little rules support in terms of stratagems and fancy rules comparative to the AOS units they ported over into 40k.

Then when the 9E thousand sons book came out, despite none of those AOS units being particularly in the meta at all, they handed down hefty hefty nerfs to Tzaangors, Shamans and Skyfires.

Because if you bought in with the 8e book you probably had a bunch of those units. So now they want you to buy other units.

i really doubt that its a nerf that was given because of their stock. GW intended for cultists/tzaangors/poxwalkers to be chaff for the actual marines in the list but fethed up in 8th. So we get their nerfed version in 9th and now the legions actually use legionnaires and i think most people are glad they can now use Rubrics/scarabs without being into meme territory

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Nah, I mean it's just simpler than that. GW just comes up with a blanket advantage that you get to have over the factions that don't yet have a new edition book.

and then when they're done with an edition worth of books, they put out new 'not-codexes' that also give out bonuses for no cost to various factions purely so you'll buy the book and to bump up that faction's winrate.

There's no deep-seated lore-based reason behind it, it's not them 'getting high on their own supply' it's the fact that they have so many potential units and kits to keep stocked that if they didnt control demand based on codex production they'd lose more sales due to stuff being out of stock.

They make kits for a faction when that faction's codex comes out, and if you dont make sure the codex is a strong one comparative to other factions, you will fail to make those sales.

So they build in planned obsolescence to army books. Plain and simple.Every time a new edition comes out ande you see a rule and go 'hey, that seems like it would work really really badly with X faction or X type of unit" yes. That is on purpose. that is intentional.

When the 8E thousand sons book came out, all the 7E Rubric based models had very little rules support in terms of stratagems and fancy rules comparative to the AOS units they ported over into 40k.

Then when the 9E thousand sons book came out, despite none of those AOS units being particularly in the meta at all, they handed down hefty hefty nerfs to Tzaangors, Shamans and Skyfires.

Because if you bought in with the 8e book you probably had a bunch of those units. So now they want you to buy other units.

i really doubt that its a nerf that was given because of their stock. GW intended for cultists/tzaangors/poxwalkers to be chaff for the actual marines in the list but fethed up in 8th. So we get their nerfed version in 9th and now the legions actually use legionnaires and i think most people are glad they can now use Rubrics/scarabs without being into meme territory

Yep. It was definitely a mistake they made in 8th, the way that they made a big list of stratagems and the one for tzaangors was 'Fight twice for 2cp' and the one for rubrics was 'deal d3 mortal wounds when the squad leader dies for 2cp.' That was a feth-up. GW did not intend for players with existing rubric-based collections to purchase 30 tzaangors and 6 skyfires and a Shaman for their army because they were strong in 8th.

Arbiter_Shade wrote:


Bringing Hormagaunts up to AP -2 by using the custom hive fleet still only kills one more space marine on average, maybe another wounded one. That also relies on somehow getting 30 T3 6+ models into 1" of the space marines.

I was thinking a lot about this yesterday as I think its a wonderful example about how experience with factors beyond 2 individual units warp peoples perceptions of those units themselves and their balance against each other. To show this, it's time for some Mathhammer!

Taking two units with the exact same points value. 30 Hormagaunts and 9 Intercessors both equal 180 points. To make it a bit more like it would be on the tabletop, we'll say that the Hormagaunts have AP-2 from the hive tactics and are protected by Catalyst at all times whereas the Space Marines can re-roll all their hit and wound rolls. We'll give the space marines 1 full round of shooting before they get into melee. (This could obviously be 2 on the table, but that's more depended of first turn advantage not anything with the specific models.) There's a lot of rounding involved here so the actual numbers could swing a bit either way, but here is the gist of it:

Intercessors shoot killing 7 Hormagaunts: (23-9) M Turn
Hormagaunts charge and attack killing 2.5 rounded down (23-7) T Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 5: (18-7)(Hormagaunts loose re-roll W of 1 due to less than 20 models.) T Turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 2: (18-5) M Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 4: (14-5) M Turn
Intercessors attack killing 4: (10-5) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1.5 rounded up (10-3) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded down (10-2) M turn
Intercessors attack killing 2: (8-2) M turn
Intercessors attack killing 2: (6-2) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded up (6-1) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 0.5 rounded down (6-1) M turn
Intercessor attacks killing 1 (5-1) M turn
Intercessor attacks killing 1 (4-1) T turn
Between two attacks, the Hormagaunts likely chip off that last wound.

This obviously takes a lot of liberties, you're not going to be casting catalyst on a unit when it gets really low, but by the same token, SM's could loose their re-rolls, or an overwatch shooting could have swung the balance, ect... There's not perfect way to stay how units will stack up given all the variables, but on a stat to stat basis with some simple modifiers, these two units seem pretty even. So is it actually that the units themselves are imbalanced or other external factors. I hear all the time Space marines used as the way to measure killing power being like "oh I can only kill 2-3 marines in an attack". That's still 40-60 points off that table, if a single unit can do that it's about right. It's not broken, but it's well matched.

Any flaw in my logic from those who know more than I?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm not sure how a skew list going completely undefeated at small points in a league setting on tables of indeterminate size and with legends models is evidence of "balance"

It's like saying "oh yeah, chess is more balanced than you think, we just use the play option where you flip a coin to see whether white or black goes first instead of it always being white."

Well I did state it was casual and Legends are allowed in casual play. Also, do you really think a 65 point model that got instantly deleted in 2 of my 5 games and did nothing, really swung the balance of the list? If I was running 3-4 yeah, I'd give you that for sure. It's the only reasonable anit tank target, so it's not like the firepower would be more effective if I put other models in it's place.

 Tawnis wrote:

Intercessors shoot killing 7 Hormagaunts: (23-9) M Turn
Hormagaunts charge and attack killing 2.5 rounded down (23-7) T Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 5: (18-7)(Hormagaunts loose re-roll W of 1 due to less than 20 models.) T Turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 2: (18-5) M Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 4: (14-5) M Turn

Intercessors attack killing 4: (10-5) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1.5 rounded up (10-3) T turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded down (10-2) M turn
Intercessors attack killing 2: (8-2) M turn

Intercessors attack killing 2: (6-2) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded up (6-1) T turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 0.5 rounded down (6-1) M turn
Intercessor attacks killing 1 (5-1) M turn

Intercessor attacks killing 1 (4-1) T turn
Between two attacks, the Hormagaunts likely chip off that last wound.

This obviously takes a lot of liberties, you're not going to be casting catalyst on a unit when it gets really low, but by the same token, SM's could loose their re-rolls, or an overwatch shooting could have swung the balance, ect... There's not perfect way to stay how units will stack up given all the variables, but on a stat to stat basis with some simple modifiers, these two units seem pretty even. So is it actually that the units themselves are imbalanced or other external factors. I hear all the time Space marines used as the way to measure killing power being like "oh I can only kill 2-3 marines in an attack". That's still 40-60 points off that table, if a single unit can do that it's about right. It's not broken, but it's well matched.

Any flaw in my logic from those who know more than I?

Biggest issue I see is that it's 7 rounds of combat, or 4 turns of the game. It's basically impossible for both units to sit there, with both themselves and whatever support they have going unmolested, for 4 turns straight.

Plus, Psychic Powers (Catalyst) are way less reliable than ... well, the usual source of SM wound-and-hit rerolls... there really isn't a consistent one anymore so I guess it's just a made up buff?

 Tawnis wrote:
Any flaw in my logic from those who know more than I?

My math says 9 Intercessors with full re-rolls get 18 shots, 16 hits, 14.22 wounds, and then 9.5 kills thanks to Catalyst. That's a subtle difference but it changes the eventual outcome.

When the Marines hit back in melee, 7 Intercessors- if they still have full re-rolls- should have 21 attacks, 18.66 hits, 16.6 wounds, 13.83 unsaved, and then 9.2 kills. After the first turn, the Hormagaunts should be down to around 11 models, not 18. The Hormagaunts eventually lose.

Remember that you need to choose specific traits as your subfaction bonus in order to get that AP-2. You weren't giving the Marines a subfaction bonus, let alone Doctrines. Make the Marines Black Templars and the Hormagaunts have a very bad day.

Catalyst on a big unit of Hormagaunts every turn is generally unlikely. You can only use Catalyst once per turn so there are usually going to be better candidates, and it's not guaranteed to succeed. But Marines don't have easy access to full re-rolls all the time, either.

Getting a big unit of Hormagaunts all into melee is difficult, even with 6" pile-in.

All in all I don't think this reflects real-world conditions very well. The more likely outcome is that two units of Intercessors concentrate fire and obliterate the unit of Hormagaunts outright before it makes it into melee.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:

Intercessors shoot killing 7 Hormagaunts: (23-9) M Turn
Hormagaunts charge and attack killing 2.5 rounded down (23-7) T Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 5: (18-7)(Hormagaunts loose re-roll W of 1 due to less than 20 models.) T Turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 2: (18-5) M Turn
Intercessors attack back killing 4: (14-5) M Turn

Intercessors attack killing 4: (10-5) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1.5 rounded up (10-3) T turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded down (10-2) M turn
Intercessors attack killing 2: (8-2) M turn

Intercessors attack killing 2: (6-2) T turn
Hormagaunts attack killing 1 rounded up (6-1) T turn

Hormagaunts attack killing 0.5 rounded down (6-1) M turn
Intercessor attacks killing 1 (5-1) M turn

Intercessor attacks killing 1 (4-1) T turn
Between two attacks, the Hormagaunts likely chip off that last wound.

This obviously takes a lot of liberties, you're not going to be casting catalyst on a unit when it gets really low, but by the same token, SM's could loose their re-rolls, or an overwatch shooting could have swung the balance, ect... There's not perfect way to stay how units will stack up given all the variables, but on a stat to stat basis with some simple modifiers, these two units seem pretty even. So is it actually that the units themselves are imbalanced or other external factors. I hear all the time Space marines used as the way to measure killing power being like "oh I can only kill 2-3 marines in an attack". That's still 40-60 points off that table, if a single unit can do that it's about right. It's not broken, but it's well matched.

Any flaw in my logic from those who know more than I?

Biggest issue I see is that it's 7 rounds of combat, or 4 turns of the game. It's basically impossible for both units to sit there, with both themselves and whatever support they have going unmolested, for 4 turns straight.

Plus, Psychic Powers (Catalyst) are way less reliable than ... well, the usual source of SM wound-and-hit rerolls... there really isn't a consistent one anymore so I guess it's just a made up buff?

It would actually be the end of turn 5. Remember, each unit will get to attack on each players turn, that's twice per round of combat. You are totally right about the units going unmolested, but I was talking about 2 in a vacuum, issues with other units would be down to those units themselves.

I was thinking Captain/ LT. re-rolls but SM can do so much stuff there isn't really a "generic" way to go about it. They would loose the re-rolls at some point, but like the gaunts would loose catalyst, but I kept them all for consistency's sake.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
Any flaw in my logic from those who know more than I?

My math says 9 Intercessors with full re-rolls get 18 shots, 16 hits, 14.22 wounds, and then 9.5 kills thanks to Catalyst. That's a subtle difference but it changes the eventual outcome.

When the Marines hit back in melee, 7 Intercessors- if they still have full re-rolls- should have 21 attacks, 18.66 hits, 16.6 wounds, 13.83 unsaved, and then 9.2 kills. After the first turn, the Hormagaunts should be down to around 11 models, not 18. The Hormagaunts eventually lose.

Remember that you need to choose specific traits as your subfaction bonus in order to get that AP-2. You weren't giving the Marines a subfaction bonus, let alone Doctrines. Make the Marines Black Templars and the Hormagaunts have a very bad day.

Catalyst on a big unit of Hormagaunts every turn is generally unlikely. You can only use Catalyst once per turn so there are usually going to be better candidates, and it's not guaranteed to succeed. But Marines don't have easy access to full re-rolls all the time, either.

Getting a big unit of Hormagaunts all into melee is difficult, even with 6" pile-in.

All in all I don't think this reflects real-world conditions very well. The more likely outcome is that two units of Intercessors concentrate fire and obliterate the unit of Hormagaunts outright before it makes it into melee.

18 shots at BS 3+ hits 12 times, re-rolling half the misses (3) makes 14 hits.

gak, right I forgot Shock Assault. I blame bloat.

True, but then you'd; have to factor in a second unit of Hormagaunts and you're more-less back where you started.

You're right that I didn'r do the doctrines, I kinda the the re-rolls stand in for that. There are so many that coming up with an actual baseline is basically impossible.

 Tawnis wrote:


It would actually be the end of turn 5. Remember, each unit will get to attack on each players turn, that's twice per round of combat. You are totally right about the units going unmolested, but I was talking about 2 in a vacuum, issues with other units would be down to those units themselves.

I was thinking Captain/ LT. re-rolls but SM can do so much stuff there isn't really a "generic" way to go about it. They would loose the re-rolls at some point, but like the gaunts would loose catalyst, but I kept them all for consistency's sake.

Right, that's... what I said. 4 turns, 7 rounds. Could be end of Turn 5, too (I had trouble getting the rounds distinguished in your big wall).

Essentially you're positing a scenario that can never exist and that the hormagaunts lose anyways (as Catbarf pointed out; I didn't actually check the math to see if you remembered everything).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:


It would actually be the end of turn 5. Remember, each unit will get to attack on each players turn, that's twice per round of combat. You are totally right about the units going unmolested, but I was talking about 2 in a vacuum, issues with other units would be down to those units themselves.

I was thinking Captain/ LT. re-rolls but SM can do so much stuff there isn't really a "generic" way to go about it. They would loose the re-rolls at some point, but like the gaunts would loose catalyst, but I kept them all for consistency's sake.

Right, that's... what I said. 4 turns, 7 rounds. Could be end of Turn 5, too (I had trouble getting the rounds distinguished in your big wall).

Essentially you're positing a scenario that can never exist and that the hormagaunts lose anyways (as Catbarf pointed out; I didn't actually check the math to see if you remembered everything).

Yup, you're right, I misread that, my apologies.

The point I was trying to make in clearly far too roundabout a way was that, I think those two units are fairly close to balanced against each other and that it is more the external factors that you've pointed out that are the cause of issues. Maybe it wasn't even a point worth making at the end of the day, it was just something I thought of when comparing the two units.

 Tawnis wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:


It would actually be the end of turn 5. Remember, each unit will get to attack on each players turn, that's twice per round of combat. You are totally right about the units going unmolested, but I was talking about 2 in a vacuum, issues with other units would be down to those units themselves.

I was thinking Captain/ LT. re-rolls but SM can do so much stuff there isn't really a "generic" way to go about it. They would loose the re-rolls at some point, but like the gaunts would loose catalyst, but I kept them all for consistency's sake.

Right, that's... what I said. 4 turns, 7 rounds. Could be end of Turn 5, too (I had trouble getting the rounds distinguished in your big wall).

Essentially you're positing a scenario that can never exist and that the hormagaunts lose anyways (as Catbarf pointed out; I didn't actually check the math to see if you remembered everything).

Yup, you're right, I misread that, my apologies.

The point I was trying to make in clearly far too roundabout a way was that, I think those two units are fairly close to balanced against each other and that it is more the external factors that you've pointed out that are the cause of issues. Maybe it wasn't even a point worth making at the end of the day, it was just something I thought of when comparing the two units.

No problem.

Just don't think of the external factors as "external". 9th edition is ALL ABOUT those external factors like stratagems, buff auras, etc.

Typically space marine intercessors are used as a baseline unit for comparison because in practice about 50% of your games of warhammer 40,000 are going to be against primarily space marine lists and primaris marines are at this point (in my experience at least) pretty well integrated as the main marines you'll be up against.

if you take a unit, say, Howling Banshees, and you look at its performance against space marines in close combat (wheras those space marines are effective out to 30" range) then, sure, maybe 10 howling banshes costing 140pts charging into 10 primaris space marines costing 200pts and removing 2.5 models (40pts off the board, a ~28% points return) seems fairly reasonable in a vacuum, if you just look at that one snapshot of that one single instant of the game and don't consider any other factor.

Such as: What happens if instead of the eldar going first the marines go first and shoot those banshees at 30" range?

Or: what happens if some other unit that charged was more critical, and those marines counter-assault against the banshees before they get to attack?

Or: What happens right after that in the combat, when the 8 marines swing back with their 25 attacks and return 29% of their points value in your turn.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Typically space marine intercessors are used as a baseline unit for comparison because in practice about 50% of your games of warhammer 40,000 are going to be against primarily space marine lists and primaris marines are at this point (in my experience at least) pretty well integrated as the main marines you'll be up against.

if you take a unit, say, Howling Banshees, and you look at its performance against space marines in close combat (wheras those space marines are effective out to 30" range) then, sure, maybe 10 howling banshes costing 140pts charging into 10 primaris space marines costing 200pts and removing 2.5 models (40pts off the board, a ~28% points return) seems fairly reasonable in a vacuum, if you just look at that one snapshot of that one single instant of the game and don't consider any other factor.

Such as: What happens if instead of the eldar going first the marines go first and shoot those banshees at 30" range?

Or: what happens if some other unit that charged was more critical, and those marines counter-assault against the banshees before they get to attack?

Or: What happens right after that in the combat, when the 8 marines swing back with their 25 attacks and return 29% of their points value in your turn.

Exactly. You can say they're Webway striking to get in range, or you could say they get shot to bits way before hand.

All I was trying to say is that when someone just says X unit is bad in comparison to marines, it's more that the myriad of external factors propping up those units and those that support them are the major contributing factor to that, not necessarily the units themselves which (at least to me) has always seemed the implication.

 Tawnis wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Typically space marine intercessors are used as a baseline unit for comparison because in practice about 50% of your games of warhammer 40,000 are going to be against primarily space marine lists and primaris marines are at this point (in my experience at least) pretty well integrated as the main marines you'll be up against.

if you take a unit, say, Howling Banshees, and you look at its performance against space marines in close combat (wheras those space marines are effective out to 30" range) then, sure, maybe 10 howling banshes costing 140pts charging into 10 primaris space marines costing 200pts and removing 2.5 models (40pts off the board, a ~28% points return) seems fairly reasonable in a vacuum, if you just look at that one snapshot of that one single instant of the game and don't consider any other factor.

Such as: What happens if instead of the eldar going first the marines go first and shoot those banshees at 30" range?

Or: what happens if some other unit that charged was more critical, and those marines counter-assault against the banshees before they get to attack?

Or: What happens right after that in the combat, when the 8 marines swing back with their 25 attacks and return 29% of their points value in your turn.

Exactly. You can say they're Webway striking to get in range, or you could say they get shot to bits way before hand.

All I was trying to say is that when someone just says X unit is bad in comparison to marines, it's more that the myriad of external factors propping up those units and those that support them are the major contributing factor to that, not necessarily the units themselves which (at least to me) has always seemed the implication.

That's true. I'm just pointing out the fact of the matter: Armies that aren't marines will be fighting marines a huge percentage of the time. Stuff gets compared to marines because the single most common scenario setup in 40k is 'you have to kill a bunch of space marines.'

Becuase space marines are nearly half of the armies that exist in the game, and a couple technically not marine armies (sisters, custodes, necrons to some extent) work similarly enough mechanically to marines that the weapons that work vs marines also work vs them.

It's part of why the drukhari codex hit the meta like a sack of bricks. Nobody was prepared for them. Nobody was taking transports, nobody was taking t3 melee infantry, nobody was taking weapons for T6 4+ 5++ vehicles. they're crazy OP as hell and NOBODY has any of the tools to counter them.

 Tawnis wrote:
18 shots at BS 3+ hits 12 times, re-rolling half the misses (3) makes 14 hits.

gak, right I forgot Shock Assault. I blame bloat.

True, but then you'd; have to factor in a second unit of Hormagaunts and you're more-less back where you started.

You're right that I didn'r do the doctrines, I kinda the the re-rolls stand in for that. There are so many that coming up with an actual baseline is basically impossible.

You don't re-roll half the misses. You re-roll all the misses, and 2/3 of the re-rolls will hit. So 18 shots, 12 hit on the first go. Then you re-roll the 6 misses, and 4 hit. That's 12 + 4 = 16 hits. A straight 3+ is a 66.7% chance of success; a 3+ with a re-roll is an 88.9% chance of success (multiply the 33.3% chances of failure together and you get 11.1%; reciprocal of an 11.1% chance of failure is a 88.9% chance of success). 18 * 0.889 = 16.

My point re: two units of Intercessors was that your opponent can afford to ignore other threats turn 1 (and potentially turn 2 as well) to concentrate fire on the Hormagaunts and destroy them. The only reason Genestealer bomb worked was because it got you into melee without ever being shot. It's not two units of Intercessors versus two units of Hormagaunts, it's two units of Intercessors versus a unit of Hormagaunts and a unit of Termagants/Hive Guard/Warriors/whatever, and the damage you can inflict with that second unit going unmolested will not outweigh losing all the Hormagaunts in one go.

I've tried to make Hormagaunts work, but either you lean so hard into them that you suffer for being cripplingly over-invested in S3 non-shooting units, or your army has enough other stuff that your opponent can prioritize killing the Hormagaunts before they get into combat (or reduce them at range, then crush them in melee- they're not that scary, even at AP-2) and then deal with the rest.

Or your opponent just slams a unit of Wyches into them and they get taken apart. Far better offensive output and more durable for the points. I know the point of this thought experiment is to make Hormagaunts usable, but they're a solid example of a unit that just doesn't work like it should.

 Tawnis wrote:
As I said in the OP, this is specifically NOT in regards to tournaments and highly competitive play. I have no disillusions about the game being imbalanced at the highest levels of play. I'm talking about two people picking models from their collection that they like or feel is thematic or whatever and having a go at each other. Are the rules so badly imbalanced that even then the game is dramatically skewed, or do people actually have to work and put effort in to break it? From my experience with Kroot, no it's not, but I wanted to hear what other people had to say.

If you've had the experience at your local meta of everyone being super competitive and not being able to play your Blood Angels, that's just as anectodical as my example. As for the tournament results everyone knows and agrees on those and wasn't the point of this thread.

So I guess the premise is flawed if you think competitive play can be siloed off and doesn't directly represent a lot of elements that are going to materialize at the casual level. The point I am trying to make is that you played a series in which a bunch of dumpster armies with dumpster lists (BA repulsor yikes) played each other, and I imagine in that very specific context it didn't feel particularly imbalanced. But even a bad list from a strong army book can annihilate a lot of what the weaker armies can plop on the table. Fluffy Grey Knights will turn fluffy Chaos Space Marines into soup 10 out of 10 games.

 Ventus wrote:

 Tawnis wrote:
As I said in the OP, this is specifically NOT in regards to tournaments and highly competitive play. I have no disillusions about the game being imbalanced at the highest levels of play. I'm talking about two people picking models from their collection that they like or feel is thematic or whatever and having a go at each other. Are the rules so badly imbalanced that even then the game is dramatically skewed, or do people actually have to work and put effort in to break it? From my experience with Kroot, no it's not, but I wanted to hear what other people had to say.

If you've had the experience at your local meta of everyone being super competitive and not being able to play your Blood Angels, that's just as anectodical as my example. As for the tournament results everyone knows and agrees on those and wasn't the point of this thread.

So I guess the premise is flawed if you think competitive play can be siloed off and doesn't directly represent a lot of elements that are going to materialize at the casual level. The point I am trying to make is that you played a series in which a bunch of dumpster armies with dumpster lists (BA repulsor yikes) played each other, and I imagine in that very specific context it didn't feel particularly imbalanced. But even a bad list from a strong army book can annihilate a lot of what the weaker armies can plop on the table. Fluffy Grey Knights will turn fluffy Chaos Space Marines into soup 10 out of 10 games.

So then where would the line be for you? Do I have to beat Drukhari/AdMech, I certainly hope to face some later. Do I have to beat the top tier Druhari/AdMech lists? Do I have to beat that bonkers Ork turn 1 list. These aren't lists that people see at a casual level, many people play what they own which is often what they think is cool / thematic. If a release has a few broken combos that blow everything apart, does that make the whole codex OP, or just those units? Obviously there will always be some degree of variance, but if the broad balance is there, does it effect the local meta that much if you don't have meta chasers in it?

If a specific codex is broadly much more powerful than another, your example is an apt one, a Fluffy Grey Knighst army would demolish the fluffy Chaos Space Marine army 10/10. My point is that's exactly what I thought going into this, their armies would demolish my fluffy Kroot army 10/10, and they haven't been. So, why not? IMHO it's because even though I'm using a codex that's way out of date and should be leagues behind the others, I'm doing it in a drastically different way that is countering many of the flaws that the codex has.

There is a lot of consensus out there of broadly what units are good and what units are trash for the various armies, but if everyone ascribes to that without thinking of WHY people think that, is that actual imbalance, or perceived imbalance? Again I'm speaking on a casual level, not a competitive one where the imbalance is very clear to see.

I don't have an actual answer for this, hence the thread asking what other people think.

So you are asserting that 40k IS balanced, but the community doesn't want to think outside the box the way you did?

And if they did so, the game would be way more balanced?

 catbarf wrote:


You don't re-roll half the misses. You re-roll all the misses, and 2/3 of the re-rolls will hit. So 18 shots, 12 hit on the first go. Then you re-roll the 6 misses, and 4 hit. That's 12 + 4 = 16 hits. A straight 3+ is a 66.7% chance of success; a 3+ with a re-roll is an 88.9% chance of success (multiply the 33.3% chances of failure together and you get 11.1%; reciprocal of an 11.1% chance of failure is a 88.9% chance of success). 18 * 0.889 = 16.

I'm obviously missing something, why re-roll all and not 1's? You can clearly tell, I've only played a few dozen games of 9th. XD

My point wasn't that they were viable in the meta, I was trying to say that the baseline units themselves are fairly comparable and it's external factors be it Doctines, supporting units, chapter tactics, stratagems, ect that are more what's unbalancing things than the actual units themselves. I suppose it was an unnecessary tangent and fairly subjective at that, how do you even determine "baseline" when there are so many different army options, especially for Space Marines, and if there are so many options, what does baseline even matter.

I concede defeat on this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
So you are asserting that 40k IS balanced, but the community doesn't want to think outside the box the way you did?

And if they did so, the game would be way more balanced?

I'm considering the possibility that by nature any game would suffer from this.

I don't know the answer. I wouldn't say it's balanced, but I don't think anything ever can be perfectly balanced, even Chess favors white's FTA. I'm asking if at a casual level, people think it's balanced enough. At the moment, I do, but that could change over time as I gain more experience.

I grew up on Magic the Gathering and I remember back playing kitchen table magic with friends when everything felt pretty balanced because we just did whatever we thought was fun/cool. As I got a little older and went to more tournaments I learned a lot about deckbuilding and strategy, while some very glaring exceptions, the game often felt fairly balanced so long as your deck was well thought out and put together. But then we got to a point where so much information was online that everyone started netdecking all the top lists and only playing those or slight refinements of those which were the only ones considered good. I never did that, I would always homebrew my own decks and I could go toe to toe with the big names, putting in some solid showings at major tournaments even though I never won any of them. They were all decks no one had seen or thought to build because everyone was so focused on the big names and big players that always posted results in the top 8 of major tournaments.

It made me wonder after playing my Kroot if 40k was similar in that regard.

 the_scotsman wrote:

That's true. I'm just pointing out the fact of the matter: Armies that aren't marines will be fighting marines a huge percentage of the time. Stuff gets compared to marines because the single most common scenario setup in 40k is 'you have to kill a bunch of space marines.'

Becuase space marines are nearly half of the armies that exist in the game, and a couple technically not marine armies (sisters, custodes, necrons to some extent) work similarly enough mechanically to marines that the weapons that work vs marines also work vs them.

Those weapons that work so well vs SM? They do just fine vs anyone who's not a SM. If I can kill a SM I can kill whatever you've brought....

 the_scotsman wrote:

It's part of why the drukhari codex hit the meta like a sack of bricks. Nobody was prepared for them. Nobody was taking transports, nobody was taking t3 melee infantry, nobody was taking weapons for T6 4+ 5++ vehicles. they're crazy OP as hell and NOBODY has any of the tools to counter them.

I don't think my Drukhari opponent from our last Crusade league would agree with you.

I think this all depends on your local meta really. If your meta is less competitive and more into painting and modeling, then when they design an army list and field it, its based on the "rule of cool".

If your meta has competitive players (not necessarily tournament attending players), but they read the internet and are highly aware of the meta, then you will see and face much more competitive lists.