Balanced lists: The truth

Well this is the balanced list article in full. It's been posted in two parts over on HOP but posting here for archiving and full article reference (who knows what HOP's archiving is going to be like!) and hopefully generate some discussion.

It’s an elephant. It’s huge. And it’s in the room. Balanced armies, a word tossed around by pretty much everyone on the internet in relation to Fantasy and 40k and something that is rarely understood. From a gaming stand-point, balanced lists are the epitome of list building. They are balanced (shocking...) and can deal with anything and everything with reliable success. They have few weaknesses and don’t simply roll over against other lists of any type. From a less gaming and more hobby stand-point, balanced lists are the anathema to WAAC lists where fluff and gaming are brought together. Here’s where the real problem is though. What competitive gamers call balanced, others are going to call WAAC/cheese/OP/etc. and what hobby gamers call balanced are often un-optimised or poor lists. Both of these groups are right and wrong at the same time because of their different paradigms. So this article is looking to bring some similarity to the definitions of the term to both parties by showing what a balanced list is and how it differs from a rock list and why they are commonly mixed up. The article also looks at some of the internet myths of a balanced list and tosses them in a black hole. It concludes by proposing ‘new’ terminology in an effort to bring the extremes of both groups onto a similar footing (less e-rage FTW).

Firstly, what is a balanced list? A balanced list is focused on its name-sake, balance. There is no rock-paper-scissors with balanced lists and although some balanced lists prefer certain match-ups, there are no “auto-win” or “auto-lose” games; just easier or harder games. What this then means is a balanced list must be capable of competing in all departments of the game. That’s movement, magic, shooting and assault. This does not mean the army needs to be able to do massive damage or rock face in each phase. It does mean the army needs to be able to minimise their opponent’s ability in those phases. For example, being mobile is essential to 5th edition 40k but being able to stop your opponent’s mobility either through blocking, shooting or assaulting is just as important. What use is you claiming an objective if your opponent can tank shock you off it? Also, being good at magic isn’t a necessity for a good 8th Fantasy list but being able to reliably counter your opponent’s magic is essential or be prepared to be royally screwed over.

One of the most important parts of a balanced list is its lack of inherent weaknesses. As said above, some balanced lists are going to prefer specific match-ups over others but the key point to a balanced list is it can deal with any other type of list to some degree reliably. Whether it’s fast, slow, shooty or assautly, explodey or implodey with mass MC, mech, infantry or any combination of unit types, a balanced list will be able to deal with it in some way. We’ll use an Immo Spam list as an example. In a normal Immo Spam (no IG for arguments sake) you’ve got a lot of anti-tank and anti-infantry through massed flamers and meltaguns. Let’s change the list just slightly and bring in Exorcists and Rhinos (so less Immolators but more S8 AP1). It’s still a list that wrecks the face of MC and mech styled lists but has huge troubles against hordes (hell even 30+ Marines if the Exorcists are disabled). Whilst this list might seem good on paper because it beats the common list of the day (metagaming/tailoring), it is inherently unbalanced because it cannot deal with a horde style list. Horde style lists may not be competitive but that doesn’t mean you can’t ignore them in your list building exercise. To reiterate: a balanced list can deal with any list reliably.

Furthermore, balanced lists do not focus on a lynch-pin (see this post on super units). Lynch-pins are the hall-mark of a ‘rock-styled’ list and once the rock is papered, the list generally falls apart. Balanced lists are not rock lists. They may have rock elements (i.e. TH/SS Terminators) but have support built around the rocks which if not dealt with, are still very dangerous. Compare a double Raider list to a Nob Biker list. The Double Raider list has support in terms of Dreads/Preds/Tacs/Speeders whilst the Nob Bikers are pretty much on their own. This leaves them subject to blocking, anti-super unit units/powers, etc as well as their inherent weaknesses against mech. There is a huge difference between having rocks in an army and running a rock list and that is highlighted by being able to suffer the loss of your rocks and still win games. In terms of game-play, a rock list has specific weaknesses and against armies which can exploit those weaknesses, will lose big. As explained above, a balanced list has no such glaring weaknesses and assuming equal generalship, always has a decent chance at winning the game. This brings us to a key point for any balanced list; every unit is expendable if it helps you win the game.

Rock lists are also similar to gimmick lists which rely upon a combo or ability to control the battlefield rather than fire suppression, mobility, etc. Gimmicks are defined by their general inability to be used against all lists. Chaos’ Lash of Submission for example is a terrible power against Mechanised armies or armies with psychic defenses. The Daemon Prince which wields the power doesn’t really have a good back-up power without becoming hugely expensive and is therefore far less effective against these type of lists. A balanced list doesn’t have such point-sinks or units which are only useful against a certain army style (I.e. duality). In the case of such units, they are generally very good at what they do and have some duality (I.e. Tau Broadsides) but the army can still operate without them (duplicity). A prime example of a 'gimmick' unit which can fit into a balanced army is the Imperial Guard Psyker Battle Squad. With the combination of a Ld lowering psychic power other abilities such as shooting, neural blaster, divine pronouncement, etc. become more effective but against Fearless/mech'd armies this power has far less of an impact. However, the PBS also has the power Soulstorm which is a potent large blast attack. This makes the PBS squad capable of 'gimmicks' in forcing off/killing units based on lowering their Ld but they still have a very solid role against most armies with the ability to chuck out a high strength, large blast template. Compared to Lash Princes the PBS is a very solid choice for an army as it has utility against some armies but is still usable against all armies. This is the hallmark of a balanced list.

And finally, a balanced list has in-built redundancy. Whilst this might come across as bland and boring in some lists (I.e. LasPlas & Immo spam), without multiple multi-purpose, anti-tank, anti-infantry, defensive and utility units, your army is easy to pick apart by your opponent. If for example you only have a couple of cavalry (Fantasy) or mech units (40k), your opponent can neutralise your mobility by focusing on those units early. This does not mean you have to run exact duplicates but when ensuring army unity, it is sometimes unavoidable (I.e. ASM in Blood Angel Jumper lists). This does NOT mean the army is cheesy/OP/WAAC/etc. but rather ensures a degree of reliability by having multiple units fulfilling the same role. This is called balanced. Again, it can be bland and boring at times but ensuring your army is capable of surviving contact with your opponent is part of a balanced army.

This I think is part of the biggest divergence between a gamer and hobbyists perspective of what balanced is. A hobbyist looks at a balanced list as having a spread of unit selections and not being top-notch competitive whilst a gamer considers redundancy an integral part of being balanced. I obviously lean towards to latter understanding and consider the “balance of unit selections” to be a 'rainbow' or 'battleforce' army. However, there are still some misconceptions about the competitive understanding of balanced lists in how they play on the table-top which I will consider below. Remember, we’ve covered above the distinct differences between rock/gimmick lists and balanced lists.

Now that we’ve got an understanding of what a balanced list is and specifically what it is not, let’s de-bunk a few of the myths about a balanced list. The biggest one for me is they are “point and click” armies. This is a load of bollocks. Look through the blog archives of 3++, YTTH, Mind War FTW, 3+ save, Blackjack & Hookers, etc. How many tactical concepts are discussed/analysed over these ‘point and click’ armies? A metaphorical ton. Whilst using a Mech IG or SM list might have similar premises in board control and be easier to play than a 24” Eldar mech list or Foot BA list, they are by no means simple. If an army appears point and click and plays that way on the table the army is either a gimmick/rock army (I.e. Shrike termies, Lash Chaos, etc.) or is being run by a poor general. Look at Stelek’s ambush article. Point and click that thanks. This is one of the biggest misunderstandings of balanced lists or 'net'-lists. Sure, you can go to the above blogs and grab a good list based on the blogs' reputation and know it does well in theory. This does not mean you will do well, even if you are a top-notch general. Practice and understanding the concepts behind the army are very important and cannot all be explained on paper. Whilst you can have a complete theoretical understanding of an army, nothing helps as much as practice. This is where the whole 'point and click' issue comes in as well. Individuals seem to operate under the pre-conception that using net-lists is simply taking an army someone else has made and it wins games automatically. Wrong. Whilst the list might be good, skill and understanding is still required to make the list work and by no means is it as simple as 'point and click.' As an aside, there is nothing wrong with using someone else's list from the internet. The internet is to share knowledge after-all and as long as you don't try and claim you made it yourself...well, good on you for recognising a good list when you see it. I'm sure most people don't cook from scratch either, you use recipes others have made?

Another misunderstanding is that balanced lists (with the competitive understanding) aren’t fluffy. Once again, I call this complete bollocks. Although taking three similarly armed Dreadnoughts or having a pure-Veteran army, etc. may not combine perfectly with the fluff in the codex, the fluff can fit whatever army you want to create. Thanks GW for letting us make our own fluff within the boundaries of your IP. There are also instances where balanced lists fit the fluff mould perfectly. Vanilla Bikers and BA Jumpers are two prime examples which are both very fluffy and very balanced. Un-fluffy also does not mean a balanced list from the hobby perspective. Look at mixed legion Chaos which is generally un-fluffy but can be a terrible list. Remember, rules were written for the game, not the hobby and both aspects (gaming and hobby) can be applied to 40k and Fantasy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, spamming the good stuff =/= a competitively balanced list. Taking six squads of Plague Marines for example isn’t going to lead to a balanced list even though they are a decent good Troop choice with some of the best anti-tank in meltaguns. You need to have an army concept in mind and as mentioned above, be able to deal with every single phase of the game whilst operating with a cohesive list. A list needs to have good anti-infantry and anti-tank whilst also being mobile (or limited their opponent’s mobility) and having appropriate levels of shooting and either being good in combat or being able to delay/block/ignore good combat units. Add in being competent in the magic phase for Fantasy lists and simply spamming units without thought isn’t going to lead to a balanced list. Spamming may be unpleasant in terms of diversity but also doesn't signify competitiveness.

A reiteration - balanced lists =/= auto win. We covered the point and click myth and I briefly mentioned this in the introduction but it needs to be said again. Whilst balanced lists promote (and are capable of) dealing with any list which is put down against them, this doesn’t mean they automatically win against non-balanced lists or un-optimised lists. Balanced lists are the pinnacle of army list creation in Fantasy and 40k but non-balanced lists are certainly capable of beating balanced lists when better tactics are used (or the dice gods cast their favor upon them). This is an important part of being a general, no matter what type of list you take, play what's on the table. It may be crap but you must ensure you understand what your opponent is using, how it operates and how you can defeat it. Without this understanding, a balanced list isn't going to help you (again, not point and click).

And finally, 40k and Fantasy are balanced systems in their new editions. I see a lot of people complaining neither is balanced and some armies are always going to over-powered compared to others (I.e. Skaven, IG, SW, etc.) and therefore asking what the point of a balanced list is. Although some older books sometimes have difficulties in adapting to the new rules, the new rule-set and army books released by GW have created a huge “logjam” in terms of the top army in either system and there are a lot of armies which can create top-notch competitive armies. This is capable thanks to GW producing externally & internally balanced army books and some of the older books transferring well to the new editions. It is important for the gaming system to be balanced as it currently is for balanced armies to be capable. If the rule-set has certain imbalances some books will be able to take advantage of this and exploit it. This does not exist currently in 40k or Fantasy as much as people would like to believe.

To summarise. 40k & Fantasy are currently balanced systems due to their new rule-sets and latest army book releases. This promotes and allows the use of a balanced list which is a "take all comers" list rather than cheesy/OP/WAAC/etc. A balanced list is competitive and doesn’t rely on gimmicks or rocks and is capable of defeating any army put down on the table-top. At the same time it’s not a point and click army and does require extensive thought to use but is capable of competing in all phases of their respective games either offensively or defensively. This is done through utilising an army-wide concept and ensuring multiple units can fulfil multiple important roles. Whilst hobby players may be more inclined to call balanced lists armies which have a spread of unit choices, this is balanced only in terms of unit choices rather than army efficiency. Although this leans towards the competitive understanding of gaming I propose we make a concentrated effort to encourage the labeling of balanced lists as competitive lists with the properties explained above. I believe this is more effective for the community based on the definition of balance and how a competitively balanced list embraces this definition compared to a list with a balance of unit choices.