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.

Why don't tournaments give lower tiered armies handicaps? Essentially grant their lists extra points. I am in no way an expert and am making these numbers up, but here might be an example:

1. Orks +200
2. Chaos Space Marines +180
3. Tyranids +130
4. Astra Militarum +80
5. Dark Eldar +50
6. Sisters (maybe?..) +50

Idk, throwing free points at mediocrity seems to be a good way to make it good *cough*demi-company*cough*

Doesn't solve any of the actual balance problems, and since you yourself said you are making the numbers up, how can we accurately judge it?

I mean, what are you even basing these on? What makes IG 30 points weaker than Sisters?

Very fair. Nothing at all, it was just to get a flavor down in text.

I just noticed how the demi-company extra points make vanilla marines feel potent. Just was thinking that might be a nice, simple way to bring balance to the army struggle. But you're right, I don't have many ideas on how to judge this. Perhaps by tournament performance while taking into account army frequency in tournaments?

And what about the players who are running space marines but aren't choosing to run demi-company lists? They don't get any free points but now all of their opponent are going to get free points. That's not fixing the problem

I suggest you give up on this line of thinking and look at the various comp systems that are out there (such as Community Comp). They are a good example on how to balance 40k for tournament play (ala targeting the specific problems and not just apply a blanket fix to everything and hope it works).

Mhm... fair fair.

I have looked into both ITC and NOVA rule sets, both which did some great rule balancing and tweaking, but it seemed mostly geared towards overall game mechanics. This is essential for tournament play.

I'm sure there are other ways to strengthen under performing codices back to becoming substantial threats besides point handicaps, I just thought this would be a good way to do it without making an enormous 35 page FAQ.

ITC and NOVA don't use comp systems.

 CrownAxe wrote:
And what about the players who are running space marines but aren't choosing to run demi-company lists? They don't get any free points but now all of their opponent are going to get free points. That's not fixing the problem

I suggest you give up on this line of thinking and look at the various comp systems that are out there (such as Community Comp). They are a good example on how to balance 40k for tournament play (ala targeting the specific problems and not just apply a blanket fix to everything and hope it works).

Links to said various systems if possible?
Thanks




The problems is specific units and formations. But we all know that, it's just a shame a community wide nerf pack hasn't been introduced yet.

As others said, points won't correct the balance in the best way. It still encourages linear lists. Give a Nid comp player more points , he'll just buy more flyrants.
But i agree with your POV OP.

Here is the example I am talking about http://www.communitycomp.org/

If you want other examples you can probably pull up old Swedish comp systems from previous editions or WHFB

This won't work at all. It didn't work for etc WHFB. Why would it work for 40k

As others said the problem is not the codexes themselves but individual units and formations.

PacificRimJob wrote:
This won't work at all. It didn't work for etc WHFB. Why would it work for 40k

Look i don't think its the end all be all for fixing 40k but simply saying comp doesn't work at all with out explaining why isn't constructive.

Besides i'm bringing up to give OP some ideas better then giving whole armies free points

 CrownAxe wrote:
Here is the example I am talking about http://www.communitycomp.org/

If you want other examples you can probably pull up old Swedish comp systems from previous editions or WHFB

Community comp is a joke. All they are doing is replacing one bunch of imbalance with another.

There's been more than one criticism that certain armies seem to find themselves terminally overcomped while others run rampant (just like GW). It's also been commented that many of the people who make the rules seem to play armies that are undercomped. Coincidence, gaming the rules like everyone else or blatant favouritism?

Not to mention that the junk units in a dex don't receive any help and junk codicies still suffer the same lack of coherency, so while some abuse is curbed, nothing changes. gak armies are still gak, facerolling is still present and you can still pick the outcome of many games by comparing lists.

How about Tournies come up with custom base point costs for certain units? That would be simple enough.

Unit name: New base point cost, new point cost per additional model

Done.

I'm running a tournament. It is my personal belief that Sisters of Battle are overpowered after I got tabled by them. Therefore, Battle Sisters are twice as expensive, because I'm the one in charge and I think they're overpowered. It's my tournament after all.

I think that explains how not 'done' your idea is.

Well, hypothetically anyone could home-brew new points for any codex they so desired. Another issue is to try to balance out the formation bonuses. Free rules does not a balanced game make.

One could, hypothetically, say that a CAD has a base value of +0% unit cost. The following is just an example, and is not intended to indicate my personal belief in what specific percentage premiums should be used.

Infantry Units from a Decurion detachment have base +10%. Units within a Reclamation Legion are at an additional +5% [total +15 %]. Units from a Decurion / Canoptek Harvest are at +10% and +10% for a total of +20%. Vehicle units from a Decurion might have a base of +5%. A unit that is Decurion / Annihilation Nexus would be +5% and +5% for a total Detachment Premium of +10%.

One could house rule that detachments with free models must instead pay a premium equal to the models taken. Spawning units [Spyders, Daemon Summoners] could be charged a premium based on a community's expectations of value added. I imagine that a Spyder might generate 2 more Scarabs in a game, so make the unit +40 points. A community's experience might be that an Astra Militarum Psyker-Formation is likely to generate 2 units of Daemons, so charge an extra 150 points for those units... perhaps. Again, I'm not trying for specifics, just an idea here.

One could even give negative percentages for "crappy" formations. GW seems damned and determined to sell Ogryns, so make formations with Ogryns -15%, to compensate for complete and utter fail-itude.

 curran12 wrote:
I'm running a tournament. It is my personal belief that Sisters of Battle are overpowered after I got tabled by them. Therefore, Battle Sisters are twice as expensive, because I'm the one in charge and I think they're overpowered. It's my tournament after all.

I think that explains how not 'done' your idea is.

That's why you have seasoned, large-scale tournament officials that consult each other and other members of the community to determine a common set of rules, similar to tournament FAQs, rather than easily upset players that would blatantly misuse this suggestion.

I think the tourney scene would be far improved by just adding appropriate and sensible point costs to formations.

After that, just knock around some psychic powers and a few units that are problems even outside formations, and we'd have a whole new ballgame.