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.

 Peregrine wrote:

Makumba wrote:
This maybe a language barrier thing , but to me making a normal list in to a 1400 seems huge . I have not a single unit that costs 100pts and I don't think other codex have those either .

But why are you trying to turn a 1500 point list into a 1400 point list? Start over from the beginning and just make a 1400 point list. There's nothing special about the common point totals that makes list-building easier, they're just even numbers that people like to use.

Ok am maximum confused . Do you mean that someone should have to buy a 1400 and a 1500pts army ? Because If I take 100pts out of a 1500 IG army ,then it won't work at all . If I remove one of the valks , Lemman Russ its more then 100 droped and there aren't any 30-40 pts good fillers I can take . In some cases it is even worse , because if I drop valks or chimeras my vets are footslogging and vets on foot make no sense at all.
I can imagine that armies that can run cheap 3 man troop units like eldar or that run 4-5 cheap troops anyway It maybe easier . Or am I getting something wrong ?

So if for you it doesn't work likely best not use it

But to know it it doesn't work you first have to make a 1400pts army out of the stuff you have and play 10+ games to be sure.

Just to find a workable way to mitigate what can SEEM like an unfair advantage during our games, while giving a superior player or list the acknowledgement they probably deserve, but don't get, through the haze of sour grapes.

Wouldn't it be better then to give those with bad armies more points and let the people with normal armies play they lists . Someone who plays overcosted stuff , would have +X points .IMO that would be more fair. An eldar army list with baron will probably table a bad opponent what ever it has that 5th serpent or just an small 3 man jetbike units instead.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:
There are ways of handicapping yourself without points discrepencies. In every codex there's tons of low-power junk you can throw in to lower the over all power level to make the game closer/more of a challenge/more fair.

Plus, you get other advantages as well, like getting to play with strange or fluffy lists.

These are all true, and if that's the kind of game you want, they are great options. I think we're exploring the handicap system as a way to play games that are a little closer to fair/balanced without having to sacrifice competitiveness.

I don't understand this.

The point of handicapping is to make a game competitive. If one player is just going to steamroll the other, and the outcome of the game isn't all that seriously in question, then there isn't a competition - just an exercise in a good player beating a bad one.

Anything you do to restore competition to the game is making your game and, by extension, your list, more competitive. That includes taking fewer points than your opponent, but it also includes taking non-optimised lists or taking low-power units.

Saying that you want a handicap but you also want your list to be competitive is like saying that you want to eat ice cream, but it has to be made from dairy products, or like saying that you want to have a pizza delivered to you, but it has to be brought to you. There isn't actually a conflict in there.

I don't see how suddenly only being able to take 2 riptides because you don't have the points anymore is much different than choosing to only take 2 riptides and use your remaining points on piranhas instead.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Maybe its a culture thing, but honestly, Id rather suffer a harsh defeat time and time again, then win due to a hanicap.

Its...insulting in a way when the opponent goes "I'd take less points, because I'm better at this game", I feel as if he's looking down at me, and even if its rightfully so as he has far more experience, its still an insult.

Handicaps only work well when an outside ranking system places them-without direct control by either player, that way you can at leas subconsciously tell yourself "its just the ranking system, I jst need to prove that I AM better then that"

So in a league system or something, where high places get a penalty against low places-it would be fine.
In random games, its better to crush people then to insult them. worst case, you see the result is obvious and you dont want it to be too crushing? let your last few turns be sub-optimal, or try insane tactics just to see it works.
You already know you would have won.

I applaud your willingness to take a pummelling repeatedly and yet still wanting to play me. However, you're not the majority. the majority of people who get beat like this start PREFERRING other opponents more their speed. And I dont wantthat to happen because I want to be able to play everyone and have them feel like Im not just trying to club baby seals. And when their skill starts to rise they can voluntarily handicap themselves.

The systme I proposed takes the difference between the two handicaps. So If I play a 100 point handicap and you say "I will also" its new Zero, by YOUR choice and we play on. But if you aren't READY to handicap yourself, you dont have to. So this ends in a mutually accepted differential. A the end of the game, you mark down the respective handicaps and move on.

So there is no ego to bruise here as long as both people can declare a handicap.

Yes, but it's still overt.

The problem with a points handicap is that it's obvious and quantifiable. It's sort of like giving someone a $10 gift card for christmas.

Honestly...I cant see why would it work (but maybe Im naive)...

1) As a "worse" player I would simply refuse to play such game. I want to play against opponent in full strengh because only by trying to win in same "league" makes me better. If someone would come to me and say "hey, I want to play with handicap", my response would be "nope... try another player, not fun for me".

2) Whats the point for hadicapped player? That he is capable to make list tailoring for fewer points? You know, Peregrine very often irritates me with his "everything is wrong" attitude, but he is IMO right in his first post. Points in handicap make no big difference. If you just shuffle your list, cut few things and still have your main strategy (maybe we can say "combo") there, its not handicap.

For me, good player is not the one who can take fewer points and still make his Jetseer Council (for example). Good player is the one who drops his army and tries to make another one from codex. And working. If you are steamrolling your opponents, way to have fun is not points cutting without changing strategy, its about finding another one. Im not saying OP is this case, Im not saying he does it for bragging "hey, I got him even with handicap".

My point is. Saying "I take 200 points less" doesnt have to be handicap if your working army core is untouched. Handicap is saying "gak, Im tired of this, no more vendetta spam, I will try some outflanking circus with al-Raheem and we shall see if it works" (for example...or simpler "OK, just one riptide" )

 Ailaros wrote:
I don't see how suddenly only being able to take 2 riptides because you don't have the points anymore is much different than choosing to only take 2 riptides and use your remaining points on piranhas instead.

Because having a lower point limit allows you to use your normal models and list-building strategies to make the best list you can with the resources available, and still take it seriously as a competitive game. Taking a bad list, on the other hand, requires you to deliberately make bad decisions, and that's something many people find frustrating. And it also requires you to have those extra models in the first place. If I play mostly competitive games with my Tau then I may not even own a Piranha model, so that's not an option for scaling my list down to meet your "casual" army.

Ok , so let people play with their normal armies and if someone wants to play , a bad list give him more points . I doubt an eldar player cares ,outside of few match ups , if the opposing army is 1500 or 1600pts.

 Jancoran wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Maybe its a culture thing, but honestly, Id rather suffer a harsh defeat time and time again, then win due to a hanicap.

Its...insulting in a way when the opponent goes "I'd take less points, because I'm better at this game", I feel as if he's looking down at me, and even if its rightfully so as he has far more experience, its still an insult.

Handicaps only work well when an outside ranking system places them-without direct control by either player, that way you can at leas subconsciously tell yourself "its just the ranking system, I jst need to prove that I AM better then that"

So in a league system or something, where high places get a penalty against low places-it would be fine.
In random games, its better to crush people then to insult them. worst case, you see the result is obvious and you dont want it to be too crushing? let your last few turns be sub-optimal, or try insane tactics just to see it works.
You already know you would have won.

I applaud your willingness to take a pummelling repeatedly and yet still wanting to play me. However, you're not the majority. the majority of people who get beat like this start PREFERRING other opponents more their speed. And I dont wantthat to happen because I want to be able to play everyone and have them feel like Im not just trying to club baby seals. And when their skill starts to rise they can voluntarily handicap themselves.

The systme I proposed takes the difference between the two handicaps. So If I play a 100 point handicap and you say "I will also" its new Zero, by YOUR choice and we play on. But if you aren't READY to handicap yourself, you dont have to. So this ends in a mutually accepted differential. A the end of the game, you mark down the respective handicaps and move on.

So there is no ego to bruise here as long as both people can declare a handicap.

I'd also prefer an opponent in my own level, I'm not saying that I won't.
But the human mind has a hard time accepting getting pity and charity from others, and that what the handicap is in essence, some sort of "i'll go easy on you" pity.
Most people, AFAIK, would prefer to take a beating then being pitied on. giving a fight is better then taking a beating still, but being pitied on is the worst.

I play both competitive and pick up games, and I don't think I have an impressive winning streak. If I honestly found out my opponent was purposefully bringing less than what they were allowed, I'd actually take that as a huge insult. I'd look at a handicap as "I find you so easy that I can play 200 points down and not feel threatened." Yeah, that really makes me feel great knowing I could be spotted an entire Riptide and still not be taken seriously.

But then again we have a more competitive attitude. Even if it's just a fun pick up game, if you aren't trying to actively win then it doesn't feel like a game.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Honestly...I cant see why would it work (but maybe Im naive)...

1) As a "worse" player I would simply refuse to play such game. I want to play against opponent in full strengh because only by trying to win in same "league" makes me better. If someone would come to me and say "hey, I want to play with handicap", my response would be "nope... try another player, not fun for me".

2) Whats the point for hadicapped player? That he is capable to make list tailoring for fewer points? You know, Peregrine very often irritates me with his "everything is wrong" attitude, but he is IMO right in his first post. Points in handicap make no big difference. If you just shuffle your list, cut few things and still have your main strategy (maybe we can say "combo") there, its not handicap.

For me, good player is not the one who can take fewer points and still make his Jetseer Council (for example). Good player is the one who drops his army and tries to make another one from codex. And working. If you are steamrolling your opponents, way to have fun is not points cutting without changing strategy, its about finding another one. Im not saying OP is this case, Im not saying he does it for bragging "hey, I got him even with handicap".

My point is. Saying "I take 200 points less" doesnt have to be handicap if your working army core is untouched. Handicap is saying "gak, Im tired of this, no more vendetta spam, I will try some outflanking circus with al-Raheem and we shall see if it works" (for example...or simpler "OK, just one riptide" )

The answer here is easy though. You declare a 100 handicap to match his and then play on. the net is zero, so the game of 1850 in your case would be at 1850. the handicap works fine. But as my friend today told me, he'd gladly take the handicap so that I can still do tourney practice and he can still have a chance to even the scale a little bit.

Im not advocating that we insult our opponents. We just know when the odds are stacked and we know that we have the power to unstack it a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:


I'd also prefer an opponent in my own level, I'm not saying that I won't.
But the human mind has a hard time accepting getting pity and charity from others, and that what the handicap is in essence, some sort of "i'll go easy on you" pity.
Most people, AFAIK, would prefer to take a beating then being pitied on. giving a fight is better then taking a beating still, but being pitied on is the worst.

A personal inability to accept an olive leaf in the spirit in which it was given is notthe handicappers issue. If you want to FEEL wrongly about the motives of that person when their motive is obvious (they feel that they want to play their list but know they need to mod a little forthe player/list strength) and they are just trying to give you a better chance and if I can win, it sharpens me and if i lose, I lose.