PDA

View Full Version : Balnce in HH



Dr Morbius
17-10-2015, 14:38
Hi Guys,

After having played now a larger number of games with my legion both against 40k armies and against other legions there are 2 questions regarding balance that punder my head.

1) I often read the statemend that that HH Armies are rather powerfull in a game against a 40k army and I wonder what would be the arguments for this. My games have been really challenging and I lost and won no more or less than I did when fielding a 40k army.

2) The other statement that one can often find on these boards is that games of legion vs legion are more balanced. Again I had very different experiences. Our games were more often than not pretty one sided and it was never due to bad dice rolls. In fact the last 2 games were almost decided during list building. So again, I wonder what the arguments are for the greater balance in 30k and if this is reflected by people really playing the game or if this is more on a theoratical level.


I should mention that we play in a casual environment between 1500 and 1850 points and no one in our group (wether
playing 40k or 30k) is cheesing out his or her lists.

Looking forward to your replies :)

A.T.
17-10-2015, 15:49
1) I often read the statemend that that HH Armies are rather powerfull in a game against a 40k army and I wonder what would be the arguments for this. My games have been really challenging and I lost and won no more or less than I did when fielding a 40k army.Points and abilities in HH are set in relation to the HH forces, mainly space marines. Things that are less effective against 3+ are liable to be priced more cheaply than you might expect to find them in normal 40k, things that penetrate 3+ armour are balanced on the principle that everything in 3+ armour is going to be T4 or higher, defensive measures that block melta/blasts are countered by various armourbane/sunder/etc weapons that not all factions in 40k have access to, and so on.

Basically it's not that things in 30k are more powerful than 40k, just that that are created and priced without thought of how they would impact 40k.
(cynically you could say this is true of 40k stuff as well)



2) The other statement that one can often find on these boards is that games of legion vs legion are more balanced. Again I had very different experiences.Many 30k games i've seen have been determined before they have really started - massive alpha strikes or shielded LoWs that shrug off anything the other guy has. When people say legion vs legion is 'balanced' they just mean that you are both playing with the same list so you have equal opportunity to win - but once you start picking units that goes out of the window somewhat.

Still 40k has all the same problems and is compounded by allies and lopsided codex balance. So it's all relative.

Spiney Norman
17-10-2015, 16:54
Many 30k games i've seen have been determined before they have really started - massive alpha strikes or shielded LoWs that shrug off anything the other guy has. When people say legion vs legion is 'balanced' they just mean that you are both playing with the same list so you have equal opportunity to win - but once you start picking units that goes out of the window somewhat.

Still 40k has all the same problems and is compounded by allies and lopsided codex balance. So it's all relative.

I think the point is that no legion or other list has an intrinsic advantage over another in 30k (at least not now that mechanicum has been toned down), that doesn't mean every game will be perfectly balanced, just because you are both picking from the same pool of units doesn't mean one player can't find unit combinations that work better, turn up with a list that hard-counters the other or just plain outplay his opponent.

MagicHat
17-10-2015, 19:46
All Legion traits/RoW/legion units are equal, but some Legion traits/RoW/legion units are more equal then others.

30K just aren't as balanced as many seem to think, although FW is more likely to fix their mess. Mechanicum had some significant rebalances, and next book will have some more RoW, hopefully bringing some more balance.
Plus the older legions got some well needed updates in the Isstvan campaign book, although more is needed.

Mozzamanx
17-10-2015, 21:57
My view is that while the Legions are fairly balanced externally, they are woefully imbalanced internally.

Your choice of Legion won't prevent you from winning. While there are certainly what I would consider to be 'tiers' of power, there is nothing like the gulf seen in 40k. Emperor's Children might be caught in an uphill struggle if compared against the Alpha Legion, but you won't have a situation like Chaos Marines fighting Craftworld Eldar. This is because most armies are pulled from the same pool of units and the Legion rules add a layer of polish rather than defining the model. Between Legiones Astartes, Rites, wargear, unique units and special characters, every single Legion has something to offer. Whether that is a complete portfolio of power (Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, Iron Hands) or more pigeonholed into particular builds (Sons of Horus, Emperor's Children) every Legion has the capacity to play at the top.

However, there are very real problems within the Legion army list that muck up internal balance. Nobody is going to argue that equal point investment into Recon Marines will be as helpful as Rapier batteries. Regrettably the worst offenders are in the Troops slot IMO, where Tacticals shine head-and-shoulders above their peers. Other issues include Destroyers in comparison to other Elites, or the flipside being Typhons relative to other Lords of War.

As long as you approach the game at the same level of competition as your opponent, you can play any Legion you like and have a good time. But you might not be able to use the exact units you like.

Dr Morbius
20-10-2015, 18:09
Ups, that typo in the title is embarrassing :/

Thanks for your replies. Seems like my feeling about the balance in 30k is shared.

This means, even in games of 30k we should discuss prior to preparing our lists what the other wants to bring to the table to ensure we will both have fun. Oh well...

Kijamon
20-10-2015, 19:10
30k v 40k is difficult to balance as you scale points. 30k under 2,000 points is very difficult for the player to really get much mojo in that army but there are some downright nasty things in those lists.

30k v 30k is very balanced in the right situation. I could write a list that would wipe the floor with everyone I know locally but doing so goes against that core ethic of what 30k is about. 30k is way more flavourful than 40k in a lot of regards and to just spam 9 predators with plasma galore to win a game goes against that ethic.

I played in the 30k weekender that Warhammer World held ages ago, it was very cool to see so many legions represented in so many ways but some people had blatantly gone down there to mank it up and to wipe the floor with their opponents.

In a 3k per player doubles game my ally and I had lost most of our army by turn 2 and had very little left that could answer to the opposition. One warhound titan blast saw the end of my praetor, my legion champion, 14 marines and a wound off Angron. Not that there's anything wrong with a warhound titan in that game, it was more that the rest of their army was blatantly set up to take advantage of the rules and the min maxing was off the scale.

30k is for the purists.

insectum7
20-10-2015, 19:54
30k v 40k is difficult to balance as you scale points. 30k under 2,000 points is very difficult for the player to really get much mojo in that army but there are some downright nasty things in those lists.

30k v 30k is very balanced in the right situation. I could write a list that would wipe the floor with everyone I know locally but doing so goes against that core ethic of what 30k is about. 30k is way more flavourful than 40k in a lot of regards and to just spam 9 predators with plasma galore to win a game goes against that ethic.

I played in the 30k weekender that Warhammer World held ages ago, it was very cool to see so many legions represented in so many ways but some people had blatantly gone down there to mank it up and to wipe the floor with their opponents.

In a 3k per player doubles game my ally and I had lost most of our army by turn 2 and had very little left that could answer to the opposition. One warhound titan blast saw the end of my praetor, my legion champion, 14 marines and a wound off Angron. Not that there's anything wrong with a warhound titan in that game, it was more that the rest of their army was blatantly set up to take advantage of the rules and the min maxing was off the scale.

30k is for the purists.

Hahaha. It only takes one.

It's my firm belief that regardless of the system you have, all you need is a couple players who are going the min-max route to shake up the "pure" game. Best way to ensure the sort of game you want is to play with like minded people, as always.

Ironbone
20-10-2015, 20:44
Balance, ha :p.

Ok, it's ceartainly better than in vanila warhammer, but HH have it's fair share of sick combos, like IW havok terminators (50 pts terminator with 2 shot missile luncher each. And you can spam these ), plasma preds spam, or moriat with combat argument array (basicly infinitive, auto-wounding plasma shots for one turn ).

Ironically, it kind of fits the theme of period when Emperor's Legions roftlstomped everyone and everything in galaxy :p.

Dr Morbius
21-10-2015, 11:34
Well, neither of our group did min max. We just have some who are more into tanks (and took kinda one of each) and some who prefer Infantry. And while the infantry foot slogged across the table, the vindicator, sicarian and scorpius took them apart piece by piece.

I totally agree that 40k (no matter if it is 30k or 40k) needs to have people with similar mind sets on both sides of the table. And I also see that, when someone claims HH is better balanced, s/he has apparently not played the game or just happened to be in a more like minded group vs when s/he plays in the 40k group.

agurus1
21-10-2015, 17:41
I think first thing you have to ask yourself if you are having such one sides match ups is: 1) are we playing with an appropriate amount of terrain, 2) is my army (regardless of theme) adequately able to handle multiple types of threats (tank heavy, flyers, ect...), 3) are we regularly playing with the same mission or deployment (30k has missions which specifically cater to infantry heavy builds).

I find that a lot of people who play 30k try to find the best balance between an effective army list and the fluff. If you find yourself getting whomped over and over again take a look at your list and your table set up. Personally I have a much more infantry themed force of Iron Warriors and both of my regular opponents feature primarily vehicle-heavy lists (multiple predators, vindicator, Spartan and land raider mounted troops, ect...). However I managed win more often than not, and every game win or lose is close and entertaining.

Also if a SD super heavy is ruining your fun on a regular basis ask your opponent if he wouldn't mind leaving it at home every so often or even if they would like to use alternative rules for SD. Also be sure they are abiding by the % limit that Age of Darkness requires for Lords of War (no LoW below 2000 points and must be on 25% of points used).

Basically if you construct a super fuffy list that has glaring weaknesses you can't really complain if you get regularly stomped by a more competitive army build (unless your opponent is specifically min maxing simply to win and has no desire to play other than to hammer face).

As far as balance, 30k has the best potential to create a balanced game, perhaps more so than 40k because of the limited amount of armies and high probability of similar units being taken. As always, your mileage may vary depending on your list, your opponents list, and the terrain/mission/deployment played.

Dr Morbius
22-10-2015, 18:50
I think you might have misunderstood my intention when asking these questions.

My win/loss ratio with legion is nicely positive and so far I have mot lost a game in 30k.

We do play with lots of terrain. (50 - 75% coverage of the table) we also always make sure to have LOS blocker in the middle of the table.

When I started this thread I was interested why people think that 30k games are more balanced than 40k. As stated earlier, I understand now that this is only because everybody has access to the same toys during list building and not that equal pointed armies on the battlefield are equally matched in power. You might have guessed that I would have preferred the second option. As in this case everybody could choose the models he find coolest and still have the same chance at winning.

From the feedback here I get that the FW rules guys are not better at balancing then their colleagues at GW. The just don't have so many army lists to screw things up.

agurus1
23-10-2015, 04:37
I disagree. I think the FW team has put together books that are incredibly balanced internally (apart from one or two choices), and with relatively few armies the chances for broken combinations are relatively few and far between. Some people's choices for culprits of poor internal balance are looking at things in a vacuum. Sure Tacticals look good compared to Breachers or Assault marines, but if they get hit by power weapons in close combat suddenly you wish you had invested in breachers. Assault marines meanwhile tend to do better (in my experience) in a vehicle heavy game, also consider that many of the missions require you to get infantry into the enemies deployment zone. Slogging Tacticals can walk all game if you are playing lengthwise and not get there.

Typhons look good on paper but can be easily taken out, especially in a vehicle heavy Meta where it's cannon won't be as effective. Also people tend to look at Legions in a bubble too. Most legion lists have a hard time vs Mehcanicum, but mechanicus limited numbers and units make it much harder for them in objective based games. Solar Auxilia are an amazing ally choice, which access to large numbers of cheap troops with either dedicated heavy tanks or fortifications, and lots of work horse tanks that counter many legion builds.

Basically the amount of variety withing relatively few army lists, means that it is hard to build an all comers army. Also there are few Deathstar type builds that come close to being as evil and unbalanced as stuff that 40k has had. Also 40k has stupid Formations where they get tons of special rules for free, nothing is as unbalanced as that.