Ok, this is my first ever attempt at anything like this, so please be gentle, and understand right up front that I don't claim to be an expert, and welcome corrections.

As a newbie to these forums, the one thing that drove my batty was when people said I needed a "balanced" list, and when I asked what that meant, I got a ton of different answers.

Since then, I've come to understand the concept, but for those who don't, here's a rundown of what I wish I knew when I started out about "balance."

The Zen of the Balanced List

Basically, it means what it sounds like: making sure your list is not too strong in one area or another. The real question is, which areas are we talking about? Basically it comes down to several pairs of competing areas: A vs. B conflicts, if you will.

Below are the most common such conflicts, which the new player would do well to remember to achieve that all-hallowed "balance." In each, I try to point out unit types to illustrate, but the examples are by no means an exhaustive list.

1) Gun-heavy (aka, "shooty"), vs. Close Combat-heavy (aka "assaulty"):

Is your army going to shoot the enemy or hack him up into little pieces? Including units which are good with guns and other units with big sticks/swords/whatever are never a bad idea.

For "shooty" units, look through your codex and keep an eye on the BS skill. Anything with a low one will probably not be an integral part of the gunline, but you should also look at the weapons. Often the standard loadout is telling. A unit that carries a gun with a higher strength than normal ("normal" often defined as "what the regular troops carry") could be useful as a potential "shooty" unit. Examples: Space Marine devastators, Eldar dark reapers, necron destroyers, Tau crisis suits. Also, don't forget the regulars! In a "shooty" army, standard "troops" units en masse can lay down a lot of firepower.

"Assault" units will sometimes have a helpful clue in their title (Space Marine "Assault Marines" for example), but look for higher WS, higher initiative, and higher numbers of attacks. Many of these units will carry multiple weapons on them, or have the option available for that. Some units (i.e., Tyranid genestealers, Necron wraiths) will carry no guns at all. That's a big clue as to what's a good "assaulty" unit.

2) Anti-tank vs. Anti-horde/infantry:

More or less a "Big guns vs. Small guns" discussion. Do you want to poke a small number of very big holes in the enemy, or lots and lots of itty bitty ones?

"Anti-tank" means just what it sounds like: Big, big guns. Look through your codex summary and find anything with an obscenely low AP or high strength compared to the rest of your army's available guns. Yep, those are the anti-tank weapons. Lascannons, dark lances, zzzap guns, and missiles of all kinds can be used to take out armour. It should also be noted, however, that several hand-to-hand weapons will work against tanks too. Meltabombs, power fists, demo charges and other deceptively small items can really mess up a vehicle. Anti-tank examples: Necron heavy destroyers, Ork tankbustas, Chaos havocs.

"Anti-horde" means anything that doles out a LOT of hits at once. Infantry units with a lot of bodies, all using more than one attack are good, but the typical anti-infantry stuff involves guns that either put out lots of low-to-medium strength shots (i.e., heavy bolters, shuriken cannons) or area effects (mortars, ordinance weapons, particle whips, etc.) Common anti-horde units: IG mortar squads, anything with a frag missile, vehicles with lots of heavy bolter sponsons.

3) Stationary (aka "static") vs. Mobile (aka "mech" or "mechanized"):

Dig in or run and gun? This section describes how to both.

"Static" armies sit still and dare you to come after them. Most man-portable heavy weapons simply require you to sit still, or you won't be able to use them. Any infantry squad that relies on heavy weapons is a "static" unit. Ditto for vehicles laden down with heavy weapons. They look cool, but remember that the rules state that multiple "big" guns cannot be fired if the vehicle moves. Therefore, it becomes a pillbox. Example units: Imperial Guard heavy weapon support teams, Space Marine devastators, Predator annihilator with lascannon sponsons.

"Mech" units are often light and speedy. Like sharks, they tend to have a nasty bite, but if they sit still for long, they die. The term "mech" refers to some sort of armoured unit, like a tank or transport. Therefore, any unit packed into a vehicle is technically a "mech" unit, but it should be noted that high-speed units don't always need vehicles. The tyranid army, for example, has no vehicles, but with the fleet rule, they don't need them to get across the battlefield quickly. While it's true that armoured units often remain static (see predator reference above), I still find most "mech" units like to move around. A good example is the Tau crisis suit. Squads of these move VERY fast, and carry a lot of firepower. The Dark Eldar are also worth noting here. They are also very quick, but tend to lean more toward close combat. Other "mech" examples: Imperial Guard infantry in a chimera, Orks in Trukks.

4) "Godzilla" vs. "horde":

The term "Godzilla" list came from the Tyranids. It's an army that fields an enormous number of Carnifexes, one of the most fearsome monsters in the game. They are Monstrous Creatures, and other armies have them too (Daemon Princes, Wraithlords, Tomb Spyders), and the term has come to refer to any army that fields a number of single-model units with heavy armour and weapons, backed up by a VERY small amount of actual infantry. The Imperial Guard Armoured Company is also worth mentioning here. Such an army is almost certain to be outnumbered by the opponent, but then, you might not find that a problem with two-story monsters on your side!

"Horde" armies are just the opposite, fielding HUGE numbers of "throwaway" units like Guardsmen, gaunts, or other "weak" units. The idea here is to run the enemy over and drown him in bodies.

Do you need a balanced list?

The answer depends largely on your experience. If you're new to the game, you probably will, which means making sure you don't do too much of anything. Make sure there's plenty of all of the above. This will ensure that no matter what your opponent throws at you, you'll have something to fight back with.

An "unbalanced" list is not uncommon, however, and is a nice challenge for those who have been around the block a few times. Try leaving the tanks at home, or don't take ANY infantry, and see what happens. This will often offer a built-in disadvantage, but a good general compensates, right? :D

Nice post Canew.

Having a balanced list isn't always that practical. But somehow, it seems to be the ideal if a person doesn't want to be called a powergamer. I prefer to have competitive lists, lists play to the strengths of my choices without taking advantage of really powerful units (i.e. maximizing my Immortals and Destroyers while taking the bare minimum in compulsory Warriors). Let's face it, some units can be utterly abused because imbalance at various levels of play. Sometimes it's fun to play that way, though, if both players choose. But I never like being told that a particular build isn't balanced. I liken it to being told I have to play with a handicap.

As long as you remember rule #1, there shouldn't be any complaints.

thank you canew, some thoughtful ideas right there. 8Y

Nice post Canew.

Having a balanced list isn't always that practical. But somehow, it seems to be the ideal if a person doesn't want to be called a powergamer. I prefer to have competitive lists, lists play to the strengths of my choices without taking advantage of really powerful units (i.e. maximizing my Immortals and Destroyers while taking the bare minimum in compulsory Warriors). Let's face it, some units can be utterly abused because imbalance at various levels of play. Sometimes it's fun to play that way, though, if both players choose. But I never like being told that a particular build isn't balanced. I liken it to being told I have to play with a handicap.

As long as you remember rule #1, there shouldn't be any complaints.

Yeah, I'm not necessarily endorsing the balanced list for everyone, but it seems to be something new players hear a lot, prompting the question, "What the heck does that mean, anyway?"

I think that it is a quite a good idea for this and to Kore I would just like to say that while lists geared towards certain strengths can be nasty they are more often than not a one=trick pony, I would go so far as to say that a balanced list is much more competetive than one geared towards certain units, simply because they have the versatility to deal with many different oponents and situations.
This is a trap that many young and new players fall into - they think that because they take the hardest unit they should automatically win, and then proceed to get rather upset when the lose. Also, if you are just starting out, wouldn't you prefer to spend your money on units that can be used in a lot of different situations or on units that are good against a certain oponent in a certain situation, but get wiped by everything else?

I think that it is a quite a good idea for this and to Kore I would just like to say that while lists geared towards certain strengths can be nasty they are more often than not a one=trick pony, I would go so far as to say that a balanced list is much more competetive than one geared towards certain units, simply because they have the versatility to deal with many different oponents and situations.

Ah, ah, ah! You're misrepresenting what I said. Reread my post. Being geared towards one's strengths is different from being geared towards certain units (you use both in your reply).

I think if we discussed this long enough you would find that we agree on what makes a "competetive" list. I specifically made negative mention about lists that abuse powerful units. This is, by no means, the same as playing to one's strengths.

If one is really playing to their strengths they are taking all aspects of play into account and providing the best possible solution for each in combination with the other (aspects of play). It would be difficult to convince me that a tri-Falcon list does what I just described.

I didn’t really misrepresent your post, as to a lot of players, especially newer ones being geared towards your strengths equates to specific units. I admit some confusion was caused by your example (are you a saying that this is what you do or that this what you don’t do?) so maybe I misread what it was you intended to say
By your post, I assumed that you disagree with a ‘balanced’ list approach to gaming, instead favouring one aspect over another (hence the gearing of your list to that particular strength). On the side of this is that when you gear your list towards one certain strength (or a couple) in an effort to cover your weaknesses you do open yourself up a lot more to situations that can’t be dealt with. For example let’s say person A decides that the good BS of his space marines, coupled with easily accessable high strength weaponry means that his major strength lies in shooting, specifically against things like MC’s and tanks. Gearing his lists towards his strengths means he loads up of lascannons etc, but in doing so moves so far down (or up) the pendulum swing that he doesn’t have enough guns to deal with hordes or enough counter-attack units to deal with rapid assaulters. Perhaps a better example would be a shooty guard army. Shooting stuff is what the guard does well so loading a list to make the most of it – effectively forming a firing line – is a logical step, however all it takes is for a single assault unit to get in amongst your army and you are suddenly in a lot of trouble because you don’t have anything to deal with it.
Coincidentally the part in my post about newer players wasn’t directed at you kore – it was a thought that connected with what you are talking about and as such I felt it should be mentioned.
While we more than likely would agree what makes a solid list (I have read a lot of your posts and agree with a lot of what you say) I must just add that playing to your strengths and gearing a list towards them are two different things (which you seemed to infer were one from your original post).
Still, I’ve got a strange feeling that we are arguing the same point, just from different angles…

I didn’t really misrepresent your post, as to a lot of players, especially newer ones being geared towards your strengths equates to specific units. I admit some confusion was caused by your example (are you a saying that this is what you do or that this what you don’t do?) so maybe I misread what it was you intended to say

I also said gearing towards strengths can lead to abuse which should be avoided. Perhaps I should've added the caveat of playing to one's strengths while minimizing one's weaknesses.

By your post, I assumed that you disagree with a ‘balanced’ list approach to gaming, instead favouring one aspect over another (hence the gearing of your list to that particular strength).

I disagree with the notion that the balanced list is the most competetive list mostly because a "balanced list" means 4 different things to 4 different people. Favoring an aspect will hardly be considered balanced, but it leads to more competetive (and fun) lists (my notes about abuse and rule #1 should be remembered).

On the side of this is that when you gear your list towards one certain strength (or a couple) in an effort to cover your weaknesses you do open yourself up a lot more to situations that can’t be dealt with.

Then I would say you're not covering up your weaknesses. If one is creating more weaknesses by playing to their strengths, they're doing it wrong.

For example let’s say person A decides that the good BS of his space marines, coupled with easily accessable high strength weaponry means that his major strength lies in shooting, specifically against things like MC’s and tanks. Gearing his lists towards his strengths means he loads up of lascannons etc, but in doing so moves so far down (or up) the pendulum swing that he doesn’t have enough guns to deal with hordes or enough counter-attack units to deal with rapid assaulters.

Perhaps a better example would be a shooty guard army. Shooting stuff is what the guard does well so loading a list to make the most of it – effectively forming a firing line – is a logical step, however all it takes is for a single assault unit to get in amongst your army and you are suddenly in a lot of trouble because you don’t have anything to deal with it.

These examples ignores the crucial second part, minimizing weaknesses. Of course this will occur if one plays only their strengths.


Coincidentally the part in my post about newer players wasn’t directed at you kore – it was a thought that connected with what you are talking about and as such I felt it should be mentioned.
While we more than likely would agree what makes a solid list (I have read a lot of your posts and agree with a lot of what you say) I must just add that playing to your strengths and gearing a list towards them are two different things (which you seemed to infer were one from your original post).
Still, I’ve got a strange feeling that we are arguing the same point, just from different angles…

I got a sense that we're arguing the same thing, but it seems from your previous post that we're not entirely on the same wavelength. My arguement, in a nutshell, is to play to ones strengths while minimizing weaknesses without abusing the rules. "Balance" is a subjective term in regards to list composition and to this end I prefer not to focus on such a nebulous term. I think that is the source of confusion for new players.

Anyhow, I don't believe I inferred anything along the lines of playing to strengths being the same as gearing a list towards them. I differentiated this in my statement about "abuse" of strong units.

My original post was simply to point out that a strong, competetive, non-powergaming list isn't generally going to be called "balanced" by everyone. The criteria for a balanced list is somewhat ambiguous. Canew has made a good effort to define the criteria, but to acheive the "balanced" stamp of approval may different things from one person to the next. Some people have such rigid rules about what is balanced it requires playing handicapped, and this I don't except. I added, though off-topic, that playing to one's strengths while not abusing them is a fine way to go about creating a list, this is all.

Beyond the list Canew created, it is possible to get more specific. Take the following:
- Shooty: is it long range, short range, mass light fire, single source with punch, etc.?
- Assaulty: is it cut down the enemy, tarpit, counter-assault, clean-up, hunters, etc.?

Some attributes are dependent on each other and these things play into how they are best used and require planning to make them work within the overall composition of the list.

There are certainly more layers than this as others will add and I would encourage Canew to include them in his original post.

Cheers.

I also said gearing towards strengths can lead to abuse which should be avoided. Perhaps I should've added the caveat of playing to one's strengths while minimizing one's weaknesses.



I disagree with the notion that the balanced list is the most competetive list mostly because a "balanced list" means 4 different things to 4 different people. Favoring an aspect will hardly be considered balanced, but it leads to more competetive (and fun) lists (my notes about abuse and rule #1 should be remembered).

Favouring one aspect over another is not balanced, I agree, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is more competetive nor necessarily fun (especially for the other person) unless the other person also tailors their list (in which case then it's all good)



Then I would say you're not covering up your weaknesses. If one is creating more weaknesses by playing to their strengths, they're doing it wrong.

Playing to their strengths to a degree covers your weaknesses, but if you take it too far - such as tailoring a list that only plays to percieved strengths then it isn't really very tactical and is only good at one thing - hence my one trick pony. But I needn't tell you this. Besides, playing to strengths and tailoring a list to strengths are two different things entirely.

These examples ignores the crucial second part, minimizing weaknesses. Of course this will occur if one plays only their strengths.

Indeed, this is where a 'balanced' list comes in. Maybe I should include my idea of a balanced list. To me a balanced list is something that has enough specialisation to deal with threats but also enough 'variety' units (or units that can be used in multiple rolls either singularly or in tandem with other units) to deal with changing situations and various 'styles' of army. An example would be a space marine army with 3 tactical squads, a predator annihilator, devestator squad, 2 speeders and an assault squad - there is enough firepower to deal with hordes, enough high strength to deal with tanks and enough cc power to tackle any

I got a sense that we're arguing the same thing, but it seems from your previous post that we're not entirely on the same wavelength. My arguement, in a nutshell, is to play to ones strengths while minimizing weaknesses without abusing the rules. "Balance" is a subjective term in regards to list composition and to this end I prefer not to focus on such a nebulous term. I think that is the source of confusion for new players.

Perhaps abusing units should be added to this as well. Balance comes in with playing style as well as list composition - but perhaps that is a discussion for another thread.

Anyhow, I don't believe I inferred anything along the lines of playing to strengths being the same as gearing a list towards them. I differentiated this in my statement about "abuse" of strong units.

Maybe you didn't infer, but taking a reader approach as opposed to a writer approach this is what I ended up with.

My original post was simply to point out that a strong, competetive, non-powergaming list isn't generally going to be called "balanced" by everyone. The criteria for a balanced list is somewhat ambiguous. Canew has made a good effort to define the criteria, but to acheive the "balanced" stamp of approval may different things from one person to the next. Some people have such rigid rules about what is balanced it requires playing handicapped, and this I don't except. I added, though off-topic, that playing to one's strengths while not abusing them is a fine way to go about creating a list, this is all.

Beyond the list Canew created, it is possible to get more specific. Take the following:
- Shooty: is it long range, short range, mass light fire, single source with punch, etc.?
- Assaulty: is it cut down the enemy, tarpit, counter-assault, clean-up, hunters, etc.?

Some attributes are dependent on each other and these things play into how they are best used and require planning to make them work within the overall composition of the list.

There are certainly more layers than this as others will add and I would encourage Canew to include them in his original post.

Cheers.

Agreed. There are man more layers to this and to effective cover every approach to the term 'balanced' will take a lot more than this, but it is a good starting point.

I think this thread is being drawn off-topic.

Here are my suggestions/thoughts for newbies who want to know about "balance":
- A balanced list doesn't mean playing handicapped in army composition.
- Determine (by reading or asking questions) the strengths and weaknesses of an army, whether it is yours or your opponent.
- Play to the strengths of the your unit choices while minimizing weaknesses.
- Do not create weaknesses applying your strengths.
- Do not abuse powerful units.

I think this thread is being drawn off-topic.

Here are my suggestions/thoughts for newbies who want to know about "balance":
- A balanced list doesn't mean playing handicapped in army composition.
- Determine (by reading or asking questions) the strengths and weaknesses of an army, whether it is yours or your opponent.
- Play to the strengths of the your unit choices while minimizing weaknesses.
- Do not create weaknesses applying your strengths.
- Do not abuse powerful units.

Ok, thanks for bringing it back on topic 0:

It's a bit late to edit the main post right now, but I'll fix it shortly.

Canew i'd just like to point out that demolition charges are short range shooting attacks not cc weapons as you stated in your cc anti tank weapons section of the main post.