PDA

View Full Version : Unbalanced Armies



Eternus
10-09-2009, 10:34
What with having things like entire armies of monsters, like the Ogre Kingdoms, and armies made up mainly of things like skirmishers and archers, like the Wood Elves, and even entire armies of 'magical creatures' like the Daemons of Chaos armies, do we think that (ignoring extreme lists, like choosing an all mounted WoC army, which most lists allow to some degree) some armies are just unbalanced? Or are they just different?

EndlessBug
10-09-2009, 10:59
Of course armies are different, we would not be so interested in the game if all armies had to have human sized blocks of infantry with a couple of fast cav/scout units and some shooty stuff. Sure it would be a lot easier to balance but it would not allow for such diverse games.

Game balance is harder to achieve with armies such as ogres, WEs, VCs and Daemons, however I do not think that the armies in themselves cause unbalanced games.

DeeKay
10-09-2009, 11:00
It comes down to personal opinion in most instances. Almost all armies have an answer for anything else in an opposing army list. Of course some lists are easier to build to a certain specific that can dominate an entire phase, such as magic or shooting heavy lists. Oh, and as an aside, I won't play against DoC with my Ogres or Beasts, not that I fear a tabletop beatdown, but because the result is so inevitable I'd rather save a few hours and play a decent game.

With regards,
Dan

Chaos Warlord
10-09-2009, 11:14
i belive that almost any army can be cheesily unbalanced at some point.
tough in my eyes, warhammer will still be "just" a social game of fun.
some people is just about winning and not having fun tough.

*tzeench flying circus (daemons)
*massed cavalry of doom (mortals)
*gunline + cannons (dwarfs)
*stegadon family (lizardmen)
*big chariot race (beastmen)
*skryre cheese tech (skaven)
*epidemus regeneration ward unstoppable horde (daemons)
*creature feature (dark elves)
*massed cavalry of death (vampire counts)
*big chariot race 2 (toomb kings)
*arrows of inquestionable amount (wood elves)
*ok just one word.. swordmasters *greatweapons+2A each+heavy armor& WS5+ASF* (high elves) <-- :wtf:
*etc
*etc

The Red Scourge
10-09-2009, 11:16
Some armies are just poor matchups vs others.

But mostly its all in the army build. You don't have to play the bunkered invospamming VC death star lord, or the souped up thirster and his flamer cheerleaders. In fact its a lot more fun taking a few chances, and putting your head on the line.

Eternus
10-09-2009, 11:22
I reckon making up your own scenarios that limit or dictate army selection are a good way of creating the encounter you want. This doesn't mean forcing them to be boring, just engineering interesting match ups.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 11:58
All armies are different, and unless I miss my mark, there's a trend in GW to try and make them unique, by removing duplicate units from the newer books.

dcikgyurt
10-09-2009, 12:19
Yes, I think certain armies are a little unbalanced, but if you make everything balanced then you end up playing chess, and well, we already have rules for that.....

As it is, if I have to put up with HE always striking first in order to have skirmishers that can have a rank bonus then so be it. A good way of viewing the game is to take too army books and compare them, you'll notice that between the two books there is a certain element of Rock, Paper, Scissors. As an example I find that a pair chariots are a good cure for swordmasters as impact hits go before ASF. Try it yourself, you'll probably find that some of the units you overlooked are more useful than you originally thought.

As the books stand, the only one that is a problem is Skaven, where you can't win unless you min-max you're list, and that is being fixed as we speak.

Eternus
10-09-2009, 12:20
It also seems to be the more recent books that are creating more unusual armies, like the Ogre book, which are certainly a break from the more traditional armies.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 12:46
I'm sure that after a few decades of experimentation. GW will eventually get a relatively balanced range of armies, by then it's time to design a completely new game engine.

Keller
10-09-2009, 13:14
I'm in agreeance with Chaos Warlord. The armies themselves aren't terribly imbalanced, but players army selection can be. Most any army has one super-redliculous build (or more) that is just way OTT. Is GW at fault for allowing such bastardizations of otherwise good armies? I don't really think so, but some may.

Warhammer is a game, one meant to allow players to have fun. People forget that fun can be had simply by playing, not just by winning, and take the game out of proportion.

Nurgling Chieftain
10-09-2009, 20:25
*ok just one word.. swordmasters *greatweapons+2A each+heavy armor& WS5+ASF* (high elves) <-- :wtf:Better than that. WS6. :D :p

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 20:49
Heavy armour doesn't mean that much.

Either barded mounts with heavy/plate/chaos armour and shield; or plate/chaos armour plus hand weapon and shield.

willowdark
10-09-2009, 21:11
GW gives its consumers the _option_ to powergame. That's all.

They also understand the fact that when you redo a range of models or a rules set, they must be better than the previous version. Would anyone buy the new Chaos Knights if the new models were worse than, or largely indistinguishable from, the ones you already own? The same is true for rule books.

mistermaster
10-09-2009, 21:59
I disagree.
A lot of miniature redones are based (copy) on previous. Examples like goldswords, black orcs, steam tank...are almost the same as the metal ones but they still sell well.

When i choose an army iīm not waiting for the next update or edition to make my army better. I like what i have and make combinations of their different possibilities.

GW gives the option to powergame but a lot of players donīt give the option to not powergame. Thatīs the problem.

If GW makes an effort to create a setting, fluff for each army and suddenly all is thrown away because the army can function better with an unfluffy army selection already permitted by their developers itīs a GW fault.

Condottiere
10-09-2009, 22:11
Taking the High Elf list as an example, lots of units were unique or even rare. My feeling is that they wanted to push sales of elite infantry and Dragon princes, so they removed the 0-1 restriction and placed them all in Special, and gave a boost to PGs, SMs and DPs.

So what do I normally see deployed on the HE side? Dragon Princes, Sword Masters and Phoenix Guards (besides the Dragon, RBTs and Eagles).

Darth Alec
10-09-2009, 22:15
Though nobody would deny that some armies are just plain worse then others. Not useless, but just downright worse.

Tae
10-09-2009, 22:21
I think the current (i.e. 6th) Skaven army book is a good illustration of GW's thinking on the subject of balanced armies (and despite its release, they've still not changed their thinking).

Basically taken as a 'balanced' army by the player - using a mix and match of units - the army is fine, it doesn't break anyone's cheese-o-meter etc.

However when used in a tournament/competetive setting (i.e. when people start min/maxing) then the army becomes unbelievably cheesey, leaving to the infamous SAD army.

This is, in my view, the same with almost all the army books. If people want to take a balanced army list they can and indeed will. If someone wants to make a powergaming/tournament based list they (with arguably the exception of a couple of books ) can and indeed will. It just happens that some army books make the latter easier/more obvious to do than others.

Drachen_Jager
10-09-2009, 22:28
I think the most unbalanced army is any list with more than one giant.


Those guys are always falling over!

<drum><drum><cymbal>

Wednesday Friday Addams
10-09-2009, 22:30
I think the most unbalanced army is any list with more than one giant.


Those guys are always falling over!

<drum><drum><cymbal>

Nah you should see my deamon army. I can see why people say there so unbalanced. My bloodletter banner bearers think crawling is the better option.

dwarfhold13
10-09-2009, 23:06
*creature feature (dark elves)


i like that you used my plogs name (and original theme) for the dark elves! :D

Kayosiv
10-09-2009, 23:22
I'm gonna have to say I think the "0-1" was a good idea and not one they should have removed.

If Swordmasters are so rare or if Engine of the Gods or Steam Tanks are so infrequently used because they are irriplacable, why can you take 3?

Draconian77
11-09-2009, 00:43
GW get to sell three times as many models...

O.o Even I'm feeling cynical today. :)

willowdark
11-09-2009, 01:15
EotG should at least be something like 0-1 up to 2k, then +1 for every additional 1k.

2 EotGs should be more than reasonable at 3k. But possibly 4 at 2k is absurd. Definitely agree there.

Condottiere
11-09-2009, 08:16
0-1 does need to be re-introduced, and characters and character traits (which have to be paid for) that allow more of that type of unit.

kdh88
14-09-2009, 05:41
0-1 does need to be re-introduced, and characters and character traits (which have to be paid for) that allow more of that type of unit.


EotG should at least be something like 0-1 up to 2k, then +1 for every additional 1k.

2 EotGs should be more than reasonable at 3k. But possibly 4 at 2k is absurd. Definitely agree there.


I'm gonna have to say I think the "0-1" was a good idea and not one they should have removed.

If Swordmasters are so rare or if Engine of the Gods or Steam Tanks are so infrequently used because they are irriplacable, why can you take 3?



I tend to prefer mutiple slots over 0-1 restrictions myself; EotG should probably take a rare slot, and Stanks could be an engineer mount instead of a seperate entry (effectively making them a hero+rare), for example. Some of the 0-1 removals were likely to allow you to field armies that should have a large number of specific units- Sapphery with SM, for example (and really, what HE other than spearelves/archers/SH aren't supposed to be incredibly rare?)

I think it also needs to be acknowledged that battles aren't even remotely representative in terms of the fluff. Heck, those weedy level 1 empire battle wizards are supposed to be a one in a million occurence according to WFRP.

Tarax
14-09-2009, 10:09
When I started playing Warhammer, decades ago, I imagined it as fighting battles. But after some time I noticed that some 'armies' are more befitting in skirmish games or role playing.

Nowadays some of the top trump armies fall in those last categories.
I see...
Deamons fighting alongside Warriors
Wood Elves fighting only in wooded terrain, in skirmish mode
Vampire Counts being hunted by Witch Hunter type characters

On a battlefield I like to see:
Empire
Bretonnia
High Elf
Dark Elf
Dwarfs
Warriors of Chaos
Beasts of Chaos
Orcs&Goblins

But when I see 2 Steam Tanks or 2 Hydras or several units of Swordmasters/Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Dragon Princes I don't feel like it's a battlefield anymore.

Is it balance (to get back at the original question) ? I don't know.
What I do know is that some battles don't feel like that anymore.

Onisuzume
14-09-2009, 11:40
EotG should at least be something like 0-1 up to 2k, then +1 for every additional 1k.

2 EotGs should be more than reasonable at 3k. But possibly 4 at 2k is absurd. Definitely agree there.
*shrug*
Those 4 EotGs would take up about ū of their army at 2k points, so let them.
I think one could have more than enough units to counter those 4 ancient steggies for those points.

When I started playing Warhammer, decades ago, I imagined it as fighting battles. But after some time I noticed that some 'armies' are more befitting in skirmish games or role playing.
Then you'll love the army that I'm planning. :p
Its capable of having as many as 300 capable (human statline) warriors at 2k points.

Mike3791
14-09-2009, 20:29
i belive that almost any army can be cheesily unbalanced at some point.
tough in my eyes, warhammer will still be "just" a social game of fun.
some people is just about winning and not having fun tough.

*tzeench flying circus (daemons)
*massed cavalry of doom (mortals)
*gunline + cannons (dwarfs)
*stegadon family (lizardmen)
*big chariot race (beastmen)
*skryre cheese tech (skaven)
*epidemus regeneration ward unstoppable horde (daemons)
*creature feature (dark elves)
*massed cavalry of death (vampire counts)
*big chariot race 2 (toomb kings)
*arrows of inquestionable amount (wood elves)
*ok just one word.. swordmasters *greatweapons+2A each+heavy armor& WS5+ASF* (high elves) <-- :wtf:
*etc
*etc

You forgot stanks and cannons (empire)

The Red Scourge
15-09-2009, 09:07
Personally I'd love to see something like the skaven mainstay unit rule in effect for all armies.

I'm quite ambivalent about the 0-1 choices. Sure there is an idea in having war alters being a 0-1 choice and STanks a 0-8 choice, but the game has to be able to scale from 1K to 20K without any problems, and I see some problems in doing this.

Condottiere
15-09-2009, 09:32
It could also scale in tiers, like character slots.

The Red Scourge
15-09-2009, 11:05
Could be cool if all other choices scaled, dependant on the number of core choices in the army.

Every other core choice unlocks a special/hero choice, and every third unlocks a rare/lord :)

Col_Festus
15-09-2009, 15:02
This was an interesting read. http://confoundingblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/26/is-warhammer-balanced/ statistical analysis of the balance of warhammer and warhammer 40k.

Onisuzume
15-09-2009, 15:50
Hmm.... interresting to see.
Ofcourse, you cannot truly judge what is says is true unless you can be 100% certain that each played used the strongest army list possible for the respective army.

Col_Festus
15-09-2009, 16:12
True but in a tourny setting you would expect to see a very strong go of each list. Especially among the winners.

Onisuzume
15-09-2009, 18:12
True but in a tourny setting you would expect to see a very strong go of each list. Especially among the winners.
Not always imo.
I remember reading about someone beating a khorne list (so no lash) with nothing but bolter-armed tactical marines. Does this mean that bolter marines are cheese?

Gnoblars are 2 pts in the OK book.
Warriors of Ulric are 3 pts/model and would, imo, beat the pony out of Gnoblars and Goblins.

Emeraldw
15-09-2009, 18:22
But when I see 2 Steam Tanks or 2 Hydras or several units of Swordmasters/Phoenix Guard/White Lions/Dragon Princes I don't feel like it's a battlefield anymore.

Is it balance (to get back at the original question) ? I don't know.
What I do know is that some battles don't feel like that anymore.

I am curious as to why you would put HE elite infantry in same breath as hyrdas and steam tanks. I would argue that HE's are supposed to use those units and is integral to their army design, it would be like saying Warriors are broken if they use Warriors of chaos. But of course I wouldn't even begin to state Normal Wariors or High Elf Elites are broken. The broken aspects of HE's are really spamming the Dragon, RBT's and A huge Dragon Prince block with a BSB or a Teclis list.

So to restate my question, I understand why you would dislike Steam Tanks, Hydras, Greater Deamons with Flamers/Flesh hounds but all Infantry High Elf elites?

Col_Festus
15-09-2009, 18:39
Not always imo.
I remember reading about someone beating a khorne list (so no lash) with nothing but bolter-armed tactical marines. Does this mean that bolter marines are cheese?

Warriors of Ulric are 3 pts/model and would, imo, beat the pony out of Gnoblars and Goblins.

True, but at the same time, how well did that tactical marine army rank overall in the tourny? Altho I do agree its not perfect I think it gives a pretty good overall view of Fantasy and 40k right now. The problem too is that good players in general may gravitate towards lists that are stronger, reinforcing the unbalanced nature of some things.

Onisuzume
15-09-2009, 21:49
Actually, that was a one-off game.
So anyway, it does prove a point that an army that's normally considdered "worthless" can achieve quite a bit.

Tarax
16-09-2009, 10:11
I am curious as to why you would put HE elite infantry in same breath as hyrdas and steam tanks. I would argue that HE's are supposed to use those units and is integral to their army design, it would be like saying Warriors are broken if they use Warriors of chaos. But of course I wouldn't even begin to state Normal Wariors or High Elf Elites are broken. The broken aspects of HE's are really spamming the Dragon, RBT's and A huge Dragon Prince block with a BSB or a Teclis list.

So to restate my question, I understand why you would dislike Steam Tanks, Hydras, Greater Deamons with Flamers/Flesh hounds but all Infantry High Elf elites?

Elites are elite because they stand above the normal soldiers. If everything is elite, then you actually have no elite but regular troops with poor troops.

But that's not the reason I named them. It's because they are rare in themselves. In the same way as Dragon Princes are.

Likewise Warriors of Chaos should be outnumbered by Marauders, because only a handful will be favoured by the Gods to dorn that much armour.