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.

Regarding handicap: Eventually, having 3 times as many points as your opponent *will* outweigh any player / scenario / list building / faction limitation issues.

And if the idea is to have games where you consistently have a 60/40 chance of winning then handicap will get you to that consistency.

Most suggestions are fluff based ideas. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, it’s just harder to predict how the game will change, and harder to adjust how powerful your list will be, game to game. If any of the suggestions besides handicap *dont* fix the balance issue, where do you go from there? Add ever more special rules? With handicap, you can easily adjust percentages. 10 % is substantial in-game. 20 % should more or less balance any well-considered lists against each other, from top-tier to bottom. 30 % should overcome substantial mismatch in player ability. 40% should let a teacher play their hardest against a new player.

So I’d strongly suggest handicap as a long-term solution, as even if it doesn’t fix the balance in the first two games, by the third you should have a handle on where you need to be.

Agree with you 100% OP, all balance complaints about 40K go away when you use a handicap system.

I don't know the exact numbers, but if you allow the loser to take 50 points extra in the next game, and the winner to take 50 points less, you will soon iterate toward to a happy median.

 Kroem wrote:
Agree with you 100% OP, all balance complaints about 40K go away when you use a handicap system.

I don't know the exact numbers, but if you allow the loser to take 50 points extra in the next game, and the winner to take 50 points less, you will soon iterate toward to a happy median.

Sorry to revive a (slightly) older thread, seems this thread turned into another how to fix GK, which really wasnt waht I had intended.

Anyway, to give some feedback on some games we have played.

2 x games of Tyranid vs GK's 2000 points each (matched play) both time sTyranids won, and well pretty much wiped GK's, and we swapped player over each time.

3rd game, GK's something like 2630 vs 2000 Tyranid, and guess what...... Tyranid still won. Although it was "closer" I still wouldnt say GK's were at any stage clearly ahead.

Next time we may reduce the Tyranid points a bit, maybe knock 500 points off them, so GK's will have nearly 1000 points more and see what happens.

I heard recently that one of the GW playtesters had been praising the number of SoB units that don't take up detachment slots, as though this was a benefit and not a huge detriment (as it makes Brigades and such a massive pain to fill). DE are in that boat as well.

Put simply, GW still has no clue how its own game works.

Pleas vipoid tell me that that is a joke. Please.

Not Online!!! wrote:

I heard recently that one of the GW playtesters had been praising the number of SoB units that don't take up detachment slots, as though this was a benefit and not a huge detriment (as it makes Brigades and such a massive pain to fill). DE are in that boat as well.

Put simply, GW still has no clue how its own game works.

Pleas vipoid tell me that that is a joke. Please.

Sorry, mate, that's what I heard.

IIRC the person who mentioned it to me said it was from a podcast, with one of the playtesters interviewing a designer from GW. Apparently the designer was saying how great it was that SoB would have all these units that wouldn't take up detachment slots, whilst the playtester got increasingly frustrated. I think he ended up changing topics quickly, possibly before he said something that would get him kicked off the playtesting team.

Best case scenario is that someone has managed to drill some sense into the designers before the codex was finished.

Why not just make Psybolt ammo auto include like SIA?

BUDFORCE wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
Agree with you 100% OP, all balance complaints about 40K go away when you use a handicap system.

I don't know the exact numbers, but if you allow the loser to take 50 points extra in the next game, and the winner to take 50 points less, you will soon iterate toward to a happy median.

Sorry to revive a (slightly) older thread, seems this thread turned into another how to fix GK, which really wasnt waht I had intended.

Anyway, to give some feedback on some games we have played.

2 x games of Tyranid vs GK's 2000 points each (matched play) both time sTyranids won, and well pretty much wiped GK's, and we swapped player over each time.

3rd game, GK's something like 2630 vs 2000 Tyranid, and guess what...... Tyranid still won. Although it was "closer" I still wouldnt say GK's were at any stage clearly ahead.

Next time we may reduce the Tyranid points a bit, maybe knock 500 points off them, so GK's will have nearly 1000 points more and see what happens.

Yikes I'm surprised that with such a large discrepency the GK aren't doing better! I'll be interested to see what the final tally is when they start winning.

What is the Tyranid list looking like, Nidzilla or Unleash the Horde?

I really want to know what's in the GK list now.. Still cant pull ahead comfortably with a 630 pts extra!?