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.

So I play SM and my son plays CSM. When the new SM codex came out I was all excited to try the new formations. But it put my son at a noticeable disadvantage. We found that I was winning more often and I wasn't min / maxing anything. Prior to the new codex we had fairly balanced games. Our solution was to just give him 10% to 15% more points. It seems to work out well for us but we don't have that much variation in our list since we don't add models to our collection very often any more.

If you use ELDAR as the base, is there an equitable way to assign weaker armies more points to make games fair? Lets make the assumption that the players are using a middle power level list for each faction.

EXAMPLE (no formations - no allies):
Eldar --- 0%
Necrons - 5%
Tau - 5%
Space Marines - 10%
Chaos Space Marines - 20%
Imperial Guard - 25%
Orks - 25%

Can the same list work if neither of the factions playing each other are Eldar (ie: SM 10% vs Orks 25% = 15% handicap for Orks)?

I'm not saying this will work. I'm just curious if it will. Is there a set of numbers that everyone can agree with?

What kind of handicaps would you assign to the faction list?

A handicap system is impossible as long allies are a thing, because then you start walking into system abuses that there is no way to close.

The only way to make point rebalace work is by taxing, meaning making everything in high tier codcies cost more.
But then you also nerf any weak unit that happens to be in a strong codex.

So practically, blanket solutions don't work.

There's just way too many variable to really do this effectively I think.

Formations, allies, and multiple detachments make the whole concept of a points system rather pointless, and thus trying to match army power on a % points scale just couldn't work (especially with things like War Convocations and GSF's where theey just get units and weapons and the like for free), and that's not even getting into wildly variable internal balance where a mono-Slaanesh Daemon army is going to get curbstomped by just about anything but a Fateweaver/2++ invul deathstar will mulch most opponents.

There's too many variables I think to match codex vs codex like this unless you're just automatically assuming all players are always bringing the most powerful options they have available all the time and are just matching the top vs the top.

Is it possible if you said no formations and no allies?

And I know there are too many variables to get every game / every list balanced. But is there a base number that gets the armies closer?

If you went back to something like what 3E-6E used, the old FOC/CAD, it would work a whole lot better, it would still have the issue with internal balance, but it would be *closer*.

Since I'm genuinely not that great at 40k, partially because I go for fun or fluffy lists (partially because I just suck at it), we've tried a number of things at my store to balance things out between myself and our better players, some of whom also use the "better" codices. I will say of everything we've tried, none of the ideas would work for a general rule for all players of that army.

For example, a close friend of mine is extremely good compared to the rest of us and travels a lot for tournaments. If he brings his best list up of nids against my dark angels, I get absolutely wiped off the board. This is definitely not saying DA are weak, just that I take sub-optimal lists and focus more on forging a narrative than winning. For my games with him, we'll often change things up from his usual games, the most obvious of which is that he brings an equally sub-optimal list and things are a lot more balanced. Alternatively we handicap, like I get bonus victory points for killing specific hard-hitting units in his army, I only need to survive til turn 6 to win it, or I start with more objectives on my side of the table, etc.

But here's the issue then; another guy at our store plays DA and he powergames everything. If he brings his list against my nid buddy's main list, it'll be relatively balanced. If he brings his list against my nid buddy's fun list that he uses against me he'll get crushed.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's hard to say one army should always get a handicap because it's equally up to the players. When people play against me they know I bring casual stuff, so they bring their favorite models or experiment with interesting new lists. If they go up against another DA player they may need their best army list. If you're going to do handicaps you need to do it by a lot more than just army, you need to know how good both players are and what they're bringing. Not everyone brings their best stuff, and not everyone is on the same skill level.

 kingbobbito wrote:
Since I'm genuinely not that great at 40k, partially because I go for fun or fluffy lists (partially because I just suck at it), we've tried a number of things at my store to balance things out between myself and our better players, some of whom also use the "better" codices. I will say of everything we've tried, none of the ideas would work for a general rule for all players of that army.

For example, a close friend of mine is extremely good compared to the rest of us and travels a lot for tournaments. If he brings his best list up of nids against my dark angels, I get absolutely wiped off the board. This is definitely not saying DA are weak, just that I take sub-optimal lists and focus more on forging a narrative than winning. For my games with him, we'll often change things up from his usual games, the most obvious of which is that he brings an equally sub-optimal list and things are a lot more balanced. Alternatively we handicap, like I get bonus victory points for killing specific hard-hitting units in his army, I only need to survive til turn 6 to win it, or I start with more objectives on my side of the table, etc.

But here's the issue then; another guy at our store plays DA and he powergames everything. If he brings his list against my nid buddy's main list, it'll be relatively balanced. If he brings his list against my nid buddy's fun list that he uses against me he'll get crushed.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that it's hard to say one army should always get a handicap because it's equally up to the players. When people play against me they know I bring casual stuff, so they bring their favorite models or experiment with interesting new lists. If they go up against another DA player they may need their best army list. If you're going to do handicaps you need to do it by a lot more than just army, you need to know how good both players are and what they're bringing. Not everyone brings their best stuff, and not everyone is on the same skill level.

You just added 2 variables into a simple equation. Of course you will never be able to balance the game for player skill level and player style. If your a low skill level player vs a tournament level player then you will have to make allowances for a balanced game. And the same holds true for a fluff list vs a power list. And that kind of balance can only be achieved on a case by case basis.

That doesn't mean that certain armies aren't good matches for each other. And if that's the case then it should be possible through points cost to make games more balanced. At least until you start accounting for personal play styles.

 Kellevil wrote:
You just added 2 variables into a simple equation. Of course you will never be able to balance the game for player skill level and player style. If your a low skill level player vs a tournament level player then you will have to make allowances for a balanced game. And the same holds true for a fluff list vs a power list. And that kind of balance can only be achieved on a case by case basis.

That doesn't mean that certain armies aren't good matches for each other. And if that's the case then it should be possible through points cost to make games more balanced. At least until you start accounting for personal play styles.

Alright, going purely off of armies then. You need to consider that certain armies aren't just "better" or "worse", you have certain armies that are a lot more effective against some armies than others. Things like DA taking on chaos or GK taking on daemons... certain armies are just naturally good against another, and you need to somehow fit that into the balancing issues. Then you need to worry even about the different playstyles of the different armies. If you have an army that can get in Tau's face turn 2, they're going to be differently balanced than an army that tries to sit back and shoot Tau... the problem is, space marines can rush OR sit back. Which army do you handicap in this case? At the same time, a space marine army with a lot of flamers and such will beat a horde nid list... but not a flying circus.

From my own personal experience all I can think of is my games against eldar, the big scaries that everyone thinks are on top. I've played against a variety of their lists, most of them being competitively valid, but do you know what specifically decided if my army was good against them or not? It was down to if they had dark reapers. RW BK have a laugh while everything shoots them and they just go crazy rolling a rerollable 2+ cover, but when dark reapers are in the game they get mowed down in a turn or two. Should there be different handicap ratings based on whether or not my opponent can ignore my jink save?

Yes, I'm throwing in other variables, but these are important variables in any kind of gaming. Even if we pretend that all gamers are equally good, you run into the issue of space marines sometimes being good against an army while other times not being good against said army. Unless you find some way of standardizing all lists, saying marines are only allowed to take one specific build, you'll always have different balances of power. I only use marines because I'm most familiar with them..

I myself like to do handicaps with friends of mine at my FLGS. We just started with 200 points handicaps for 2000 point games and took it from there.

Its helped the games flow better, but there are some exceptions. For us it was my competitive Iron Hands versus my friends standard so so daemon army. 2000 point gladius versus 2500 CSM and Chaos demons (mostly demons). He got curb stomped into paste. However we agreed it really was due to the mechanics of the gladius bypassing point handicaps resulting in what was really a 2500 v 2500 game.

In other games that were just my "competitive" Orks versus more themed IG or chaos we went with 200 points and its worked well.

I advise just trying different numbers and seeing what works for you. Play test your armies with each other. Maybe think of adding a specific free unit to help the weaker codex or let them draw an additional objective card. Perhaps let them deploy 2nd and take first turn always. Slap some models on the board and see what sticks.

Thank you TibsIronblood, I'm glad to see there are some solutions.

I completely agree with you kingbobbito. Some armies work better than others vs certain opponents. And I think it should be that way.

however, it is a pretty common theme on here that Eldar (for example) are under priced (point wise). Some people just like to say that they are too efficient. So if we just look at them, how much would we have to raise the cost of Eldar to make people say that they weren't under priced. If we raised the price of all Eldar units by 10% would people feel they were fairly valued? 20%?

I think it's also pretty easy to make the argument that CSM are over priced. So there should be a number that most people can agree on.

This is one of the best ideas in a long time.
The allies part is solved real simple just give them the discount per faction of a detachment or per model not per army and you are done.

A good be previous tournament results and keep it dynamic. This effectively creates a feedback loop if the army was buffed to much by being cheaper it would be less buffed next time since it is now a higher ranking army. Such a feedback loop should keep the systm in check if you apply it at a large enough tournament where most differences in a faction even out. It does have the potential to run wild in smaller inhomogeneous groups.


The reason why this is great is because GW didn't correct all the armies for point inflation / power creep in the same way.

Just take a unit like the never changing space marine tactical marine and express your models into them instead of points.
This immediately shows that Orks are currently over costed.
Space marines dramaticly went down in point cost the previous editions and gained buffs from the rules while ork boys remained the same point costs and got nerfs

It would only work as a gentleman's agreement between both players before the game. And it would also be up to those two players to agree on the handicap.
Personally I like this idea and would be happy to allow it if I was up against a weak army/opponent. I know a lot of people who would hate this as it would spoil their ability to annihilate their opponent, these are the type of players I try to avoid anyway.
Can't see it working in a tournament environment for the other posters reasons.

I think these days with the amount of selections/formations/super heavy stuff if you want to try and "balance" the game, I think the most feasible option is to say that each side can only bring a single CAD to the table (and maybe 1 allied detachment if you want to allow some flexibility). Still not entirely balanced - but at least in this scenario the only thing that would theoretically be a disadvantage is codex creep.

The problem with that is that it only works for armies that can do a cad. And you assume that all codexes have the same point efficiency. This last one should be able to be calculated.

I don't ever feel at a dsadvantage when playing my Crons against Eldar. A points handicap isn't really needed. However, for the older codexes (Nids, AM, CSM) I'd be all for it.

Another alternative would be to play a game and the loser gets an extra 50/100/5%/[insert arbitrary number here] next game until they win. Then you can find a self balancing mechanic for not only your armies, but your skill levels too.

Having said that, I've seen 1850 of competitive eldar wipe 2500 of BA in 4 rounds, so it might take quite a few losses to balance out depending on armies.

For sm vs csm, are you running grav? If yes, +10% points to csm. Are you running lots of grav? If yes, +20% points to csm. Are you running a gladius? +15% to csm. Is he running a non-nurgle themed csm list ? Another 10% to csm. Is he running Be'lakor? -5% to csm. juggerlord and Spawn -10%, double or triple drakes, -10/15%.

 Drasius wrote:
Another alternative would be to play a game and the loser gets an extra 50/100/5%/[insert arbitrary number here] next game until they win. Then you can find a self balancing mechanic for not only your armies, but your skill levels too.

Having said that, I've seen 1850 of competitive eldar wipe 2500 of BA in 4 rounds, so it might take quite a few losses to balance out depending on armies.

For sm vs csm, are you running grav? If yes, +10% points to csm. Are you running lots of grav? If yes, +20% points to csm. Are you running a gladius? +15% to csm. Is he running a non-nurgle themed csm list ? Another 10% to csm. Is he running Be'lakor? -5% to csm. juggerlord and Spawn -10%, double or triple drakes, -10/15%.

That's actually how my son and I started. First game I gave him 5%, then 10%, 15% and he won then back to 10%...





Automatically Appended Next Post:
So is there a solid set of numbers that everyone can agree on for a base from which to start?

Are my example numbers close? How would you change them?

EXAMPLE:
Eldar --- 0%
Necrons - 5%
Tau - 5%
Space Marines - 10%
Chaos Space Marines - 20%
Tyranids - 20%
Imperial Guard - 25%
Orks - 25%

IG are weaker than Orks, and CSM are weaker still.

 Ashiraya wrote:
IG are weaker than Orks, and CSM are weaker still.

Something like this?

DRAFT (No formations - No allies):
Eldar --- 0%
Necrons - 5%
Tau - 5%
Space Marines - 10%
Tyranids - 20%
Orks - 20%
Imperial Guard - 25%
Chaos Space Marines - 25%

Something like this?

Better, though I'd honestly consider giving CSM 30% at this point.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Better, though I'd honestly consider giving CSM 30% at this point.

Cool. 30% it is.

DRAFT (No formations - No allies):
Eldar --- 0%
Necrons - 5%
Tau - 5%
Space Marines - 10%
Tyranids - 20%
Orks - 20%
Imperial Guard - 25%
Chaos Space Marines - 30%

The problem with the handicap system is its too general. It doesn't account for the power of the specific list a person is using because that has a huge determining factor on how how broken any given army is.

For example a space marine army that is using Gladius to get free transports is already gets a couple hundred free points, giving them a 10% handicap is just giving them almost 200 pts (or denying weaker armies almost 200 pts) on top of their free tranports. But a player using a soft SM list that is fluffy (like a list that is just a bunch of Assault Marines) would need perhaps an even stronger handicap to keep up with competitive lists of even the weak armies like IG.

 CrownAxe wrote:
The problem with the handicap system is its too general. It doesn't account for the power of the specific list a person is using because that has a huge determining factor on how how broken any given army is.

For example a space marine army that is using Gladius to get free transports is already gets a couple hundred free points, giving them a 10% handicap is just giving them almost 200 pts (or denying weaker armies almost 200 pts) on top of their free tranports. But a player using a soft SM list that is fluffy (like a list that is just a bunch of Assault Marines) would need perhaps an even stronger handicap to keep up with competitive lists of even the weak armies like IG.

That has always been part of the game. It's one of the reasons that list building is fun.

But please note. In this handicap list we specifically remove the use of formations. I know that some people like them but honestly, formations break the point system.

And isn't it the removal of a point system that has the AoS community pulling their hair out? A unit value system is necessary to the game.

And please consider this; Without some kind of player created system that the community can agree to, there is no list that an Orc player can bring to play against an Eldar player without being totally certain of defeat. That leads to frustrated players. Frustrated players dont play. That equates to fewer games for everyone.

Because we as a community have to accept that GW will not balance the codex's any time in the near future. There are daily threads on Dakka about OP codex's. Well... what makes a codex OP? Simply, the points cost. There is no such thing as a good or bad unit, just cheap or expensive ones. Because you wouldn't take a Leman Russ if it was 250 points. It would suck at that point value. But you would take squadrons of them if they were 75 points.

So the system has to be simple. We can't rewrite the codex's. But we can do a little to balance them IF we could a published set of balancing rules that people could refer to.

I not saying you can't change points costs (in fact I think you should). But you can't do it as a blanket points handicap by army because army lists aren't the same in power. An Eldar list that is all Striking Scorpians and Banshees shouldn't have the same handicap as an Eldar list that is all Scat Bikes and Warp Spiders.

If you want to change points to balance the game, balance it by unit, not by army.

Perhaps post up a common army list for you and one for your son and we might be able to suggest some numbers a bit more. As CrownAxe said, much as not all codexes are equal, not all builds within a codex are equal.

 Drasius wrote:
Perhaps post up a common army list for you and one for your son and we might be able to suggest some numbers a bit more. As CrownAxe said, much as not all codexes are equal, not all builds within a codex are equal.

It's easy between my son and I, we have it worked out. Thank you though.

The deal is that, in my local meta, have an Ork player that doesn't want to play against my Ultramarines. I don't want to play against this other guy's Necrons and since he beat everyone so easily I think he got board with 40k anyway. My son doesn't want to play against our other friends Tau or the other dudes Necrons. There is an Imperial Guard player that doesn't want to play against my Ultramarines. And another guy has a Tyranid army that he doesn't want to play against anyone. Out of the six people the only people I usually play are my Son and they guy that has the Tau.

So I though... if we only had a system in place to balance the game and make everyone feel like they had a chance playing against any other army it would be great. But I guess it wont work.

I actually love this Idea, since I personally don't like the Idea of watering down or unoptimising the effectiveness of my army just to balance out each other. It's not that I like to crush my opponent, but taking a list where I had to pull out my favorite unit because of the balance sucks, especially in a game where you start by liking models and faction.(I play tau, and I can swear I have never taken more than one riptide and never a stormsurge, even though I have 3 riptides and Stormsurge in my home, because of 'no-cheese' ..
In this way, I can try my best with my set point, and my opponent can overcome that with more point to utilize.

 Kellevil wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The problem with the handicap system is its too general. It doesn't account for the power of the specific list a person is using because that has a huge determining factor on how how broken any given army is.

For example a space marine army that is using Gladius to get free transports is already gets a couple hundred free points, giving them a 10% handicap is just giving them almost 200 pts (or denying weaker armies almost 200 pts) on top of their free tranports. But a player using a soft SM list that is fluffy (like a list that is just a bunch of Assault Marines) would need perhaps an even stronger handicap to keep up with competitive lists of even the weak armies like IG.

That has always been part of the game. It's one of the reasons that list building is fun.

But please note. In this handicap list we specifically remove the use of formations. I know that some people like them but honestly, formations break the point system.

And isn't it the removal of a point system that has the AoS community pulling their hair out? A unit value system is necessary to the game.

And please consider this; Without some kind of player created system that the community can agree to, there is no list that an Orc player can bring to play against an Eldar player without being totally certain of defeat. That leads to frustrated players. Frustrated players dont play. That equates to fewer games for everyone.

Because we as a community have to accept that GW will not balance the codex's any time in the near future. There are daily threads on Dakka about OP codex's. Well... what makes a codex OP? Simply, the points cost. There is no such thing as a good or bad unit, just cheap or expensive ones. Because you wouldn't take a Leman Russ if it was 250 points. It would suck at that point value. But you would take squadrons of them if they were 75 points.

So the system has to be simple. We can't rewrite the codex's. But we can do a little to balance them IF we could a published set of balancing rules that people could refer to.

Formations on their own aren't that bad really, outside of a couple standouts such as the Skyhammer.

What's really killing the balance between the 7.5 codices vs. the rest of the game, is the Decurion/GSF/Hunter Cadre/etc... special Detachments, that are nothing but "formations + formations = even more 'free' bonuses/perks."

On it's own for example, there's nothing really OP or hugely unbalancing about a Demi-Battle Company. There's a fairly decent 'tax' to pay of overall purely average units (3x Tactical Squads), that balance out the bonus of gaining Obsec + an additional set of Tactical Doctrines.
It's when the Gladius is used that Codex Marines becomes hugely obnoxious, because the 'free' transports effectively means you're now only paying 3-5pts/model per Marine!

Likewise, the few formations that Chaos now has, (mostly through Daemons), overall are pretty 'meh'. However, again, it's a Daemonic Incursion detachment that gets completely bonkers!
On the other hand, the three different Hellbrute formations are literally the one and only way to make use of an otherwise completely unusable unit!

Necron formations are overall quite fun. It's the additional buffs of the Decurion that make them all but unkillable.

Etc, etc...
A blanket ban on formations is pretty heavy handed & entirely unneeded. A restriction to the Decruion style detachments is definitely a good idea, as well as a restriction to the small handful of really busted formations. (*cough*Skyhammer*cough*).

Huron black heart wrote:
It would only work as a gentleman's agreement between both players before the game. And it would also be up to those two players to agree on the handicap.
Personally I like this idea and would be happy to allow it if I was up against a weak army/opponent. I know a lot of people who would hate this as it would spoil their ability to annihilate their opponent, these are the type of players I try to avoid anyway.
Can't see it working in a tournament environment for the other posters reasons.

Generally this. I think a handicap system could work really well in local or club settings and playing it off kinda like golf does. It's not about what army you play but your playing skill. Terrible w/l record? +500 points in your games. Your opponent has a 200 point handicap? Well then The first example would only get 300 bonus points to use and your opponent has 0 bonus points. opposed to playing someone without a handicap where you'd get the full bonus. I don't think it would be too difficult to hammer out the details of such a stystem for leagues/clubs to work with but I do agree it would be impossible to actually institute in the game as part of the core rules

Experiment 626 wrote:

 Kellevil wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
The problem with the handicap system is its too general. It doesn't account for the power of the specific list a person is using because that has a huge determining factor on how how broken any given army is.

For example a space marine army that is using Gladius to get free transports is already gets a couple hundred free points, giving them a 10% handicap is just giving them almost 200 pts (or denying weaker armies almost 200 pts) on top of their free tranports. But a player using a soft SM list that is fluffy (like a list that is just a bunch of Assault Marines) would need perhaps an even stronger handicap to keep up with competitive lists of even the weak armies like IG.

That has always been part of the game. It's one of the reasons that list building is fun.

But please note. In this handicap list we specifically remove the use of formations. I know that some people like them but honestly, formations break the point system.

And isn't it the removal of a point system that has the AoS community pulling their hair out? A unit value system is necessary to the game.

And please consider this; Without some kind of player created system that the community can agree to, there is no list that an Orc player can bring to play against an Eldar player without being totally certain of defeat. That leads to frustrated players. Frustrated players dont play. That equates to fewer games for everyone.

Because we as a community have to accept that GW will not balance the codex's any time in the near future. There are daily threads on Dakka about OP codex's. Well... what makes a codex OP? Simply, the points cost. There is no such thing as a good or bad unit, just cheap or expensive ones. Because you wouldn't take a Leman Russ if it was 250 points. It would suck at that point value. But you would take squadrons of them if they were 75 points.

So the system has to be simple. We can't rewrite the codex's. But we can do a little to balance them IF we could a published set of balancing rules that people could refer to.

Formations on their own aren't that bad really, outside of a couple standouts such as the Skyhammer.

What's really killing the balance between the 7.5 codices vs. the rest of the game, is the Decurion/GSF/Hunter Cadre/etc... special Detachments, that are nothing but "formations + formations = even more 'free' bonuses/perks."

On it's own for example, there's nothing really OP or hugely unbalancing about a Demi-Battle Company. There's a fairly decent 'tax' to pay of overall purely average units (3x Tactical Squads), that balance out the bonus of gaining Obsec + an additional set of Tactical Doctrines.
It's when the Gladius is used that Codex Marines becomes hugely obnoxious, because the 'free' transports effectively means you're now only paying 3-5pts/model per Marine!

Likewise, the few formations that Chaos now has, (mostly through Daemons), overall are pretty 'meh'. However, again, it's a Daemonic Incursion detachment that gets completely bonkers!
On the other hand, the three different Hellbrute formations are literally the one and only way to make use of an otherwise completely unusable unit!

Necron formations are overall quite fun. It's the additional buffs of the Decurion that make them all but unkillable.

Etc, etc...
A blanket ban on formations is pretty heavy handed & entirely unneeded. A restriction to the Decruion style detachments is definitely a good idea, as well as a restriction to the small handful of really busted formations. (*cough*Skyhammer*cough*).

When you focus in on the small details and certain codexes you can make the argument that formations aren't broken or they aren't 'that bad'. But when you compare the Decurion formation to the Emperors Shield Infantry Company then it should become pretty clear. And whats worse is that the weak codexes got weak formations (IG, Orcs) and the strong codexes got strong formations (Eldar, Necrons, Tau). So the power gap got even larger that it was before they updated it.

But all I was doing was pitching an idea. I would be willing to listen to any idea that would help balance the game. It just needs to be simple. So if you can come up with an elegant plan to balance armies and still include formations then please... enlighten us.