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.

What does the Dakka community think of the idea of "handicapping" (such as in golf or chess) as a way to self-balance between opponents with armies of varying power level and between players of various skill/experience? A game that is decided by Turn 2 isn't fun for either player. An effective handicap would result in closer games that are more fun. Even the player at the disadvantage will have fun trying to actually win through tactics rather than by the default of a strong list or a massive gap in experience over the weaker player.

This would only really work among a group of regular players so people have a common measurement for their relative "strength".

But I'm looking for some ideas on how to implement this.

Some half-baked initial thoughts:
If Player A loses three games in a row or 3 of 4 to Player B, Player A gets 10% more points in subsequent games.
If Player A loses as above, but two of the losses were "major" ( lost by 50% or more in VP or KP), Player A gets 15% more points in subsequent games (an extra 5% over the 10% for just losing).
If even with the points advantage, Player A again loses 3 in a row or 3 of 4 against Player B, Player A gets another 10% more points in subsequent games added to what he's already getting (or it could be an extra 15% if they are major losses).
If the player with the points advantage catches up in skill and starts winning too much (3 in a row or 3 of 4), they lose the points advantage one tier at a time.
It is possible to have an advantage against one player and a disadvantage against another.
The goal is for each player to have no more than a 70% continuous win percentage against any other player. If you can't win at least 30% of the time, a lot of players won't have much fun.

The best part is that handicapping eliminates any debate about codex balance versus "learn to play" because it is used even in games that are 100% even and solely based on skill like golf and chess. Because in the end, games are only fun if both players are challenged and if both players have a chance to win.

What do people think? Does this sound reasonable for making fun and evenly-matched games?

This doesn't seem like a bad house rule. I've seen similar things utilized in campaign systems where the losing side gets extra points to play with to keep the campaign from being one-sided. If you like coming up with custom missions, creating missions that are biased in favor the player that tends to lose can be a neat way to go.

That said, I'm not generally a huge fan of handicapping because it feels like one player is going, "Well, you're about 300 points weaker than me, so have some extra army to try and balance things out." Which really shouldn't be a bad thing. It just feels a little off to me for some reason. I'd generally rather let someone homebrew some detachment or unit upgrade rules to balance things out.

Handicapping is a bad way.

One friend of mine played MK much worse than me. It was pretty borring to play with him normally, so I was succumbing him a bit.
But one day, I decided to play at full skill. It was a pretty borring first time, but once he started to beat my ass not rarer than I beat his ass. And both of us started to have fun from playing,

If you can not win - learn to play. It's not so easy, but not so difficult,
At last, you can always buy some scatter lasers, don't you? If you have no skill, you will lose in any cases.

 OneEyedALice wrote:
Handicapping is a bad way.

One friend of mine played MK much worse than me. It was pretty borring to play with him normally, so I was succumbing him a bit.
But one day, I decided to play at full skill. It was a pretty borring first time, but once he started to beat my ass not rarer than I beat his ass. And both of us started to have fun from playing,

If you can not win - learn to play. It's not so easy, but not so difficult,
At last, you can always buy some scatter lasers, don't you? If you have no skill, you will lose in any cases.

Most people elect to use handicapping in (non-tournament) golf so players of different skill can play together and have fun. Sure, you could just tell your friends to get better, but what do you do in the meantime, just crush them over and over until they have no fun and quit? Plus, as the weaker player gets better, so too does the stronger player so how does the weaker player catch up? What if one guy plays every week and his opponent plays every month or two? How can the less-active player hope to increase in skill faster than his opponent and catch up?

Plus, many people know what to do to have a more competitive army, but it takes a long time to collect, build and paint the needed models to field the best formations. For example, most Orks players can see a Green Tide, Blitz Brigade or Bully Boyz is effective, but it may take the average gamer months to build and paint that many Battlewagons, Boyz, MANz, etc. So should the player just suffer through loss after loss in the meantime?

Handicapping still rewards skill because people instantly recognize a skilled player by his/her lack of a handicap. I think it is the simplest way to have balanced and fun games. If the weaker player does catch up in skill or list-building or gets a new codex, the advantage automatically fades away if they win too much.

Ultimately, debating L2P vs. balance doesn't help. What most people seem to agree on is that a wargame should be somewhat balanced to be fun. The reasons for being unbalanced don't matter. Handicapping gets the balance closer and therefore makes games more interesting and fun more often. Obviously it has no place in tournaments.

Well golf is a sport in which you just play the course and then compare scores at the end. There is basically zero interaction in terms of game mechanics with your opponent. Hanidcapping just serves to shift the score to compensate for player skill but it has zero influence on your gameplay of putting the ball in the hole. Why that matters is because when you give bonus points then it has an impact on the gameplay which can impact your opponents play.

I like the spirit of the idea but the execution is just too difficult to properly calculate and execute. Better to just follow a sort of social etiquette to play evenly matched lists so everyone can have fun. If your opponent keeps running face stomper lists (in relation to their opponents skill/power) then that person might not be worth playing against. Even better would be for GW to get their rules writing act together and focus on codex balance but that wont happen.

 The Riddle of Steel wrote:

Sure, you could just tell your friends to get better, but what do you do in the meantime, just crush them over and over until they have no fun and quit? Plus, as the weaker player gets better, so too does the stronger player so how does the weaker player catch up? What if one guy plays every week and his opponent plays every month or two? How can the less-active player hope to increase in skill faster than his opponent and catch up?

Nope. I teach them, how to play and where they making mistakes to prevent them from making it again.

 The Riddle of Steel wrote:

Handicapping still rewards skill because people instantly recognize a skilled player by his/her lack of a handicap. I think it is the simplest way to have balanced and fun games. If the weaker player does catch up in skill or list-building or gets a new codex, the advantage automatically fades away if they win too much.

I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think there is any joy of winning, when you have a handicap.
Handicaping is not leads to fun or improving skill. You can not learn to ride bycicle, if you are only coasting.

At last, 40k is not a fighting and does not require any dexterity. You can think before acting and ask an advice from experienced player.

Good points Wyldhunt, Vankraken, and OneEyedALice. I appreciate the thoughtful and polite responses.

I guess I am trying to come up with a way that lets each player try as hard as they can in the game with both players still having at least a decent chance to win. We all agree it would be best if GW gave fair points values to all units such that any game of equal points is relatively balanced, other than player skill. But I would rather find a solution that is within our control as a community.

So if people don't like my suggestion, what other ideas are out there? So far, the most common seems to be to get the stronger player to agree to use a sub-optimal list. Doesn't this have the same problem that if the weaker player wins, it could feel hollow because the other player used a purposefully nerfed list? The other option seems to be for the weaker player to just suck it up and keep trying with their current model collection until they can get better models bought and painted or new rules get released. I agree there is nothing wrong with this approach in theory but I see post after post on Dakka from people ready to quit the game because of how unbalanced they perceive the codexes and units to be. It seems there should be some simple practical solution to help keep them engaged.

Any and all ideas are welcome!

I think, the best way is to play something non-competetive. Narrative campaigns, last stand or something like this.
And run a small-format games between newbies with advice from experienced players. Kill team is interesting way too.

Also, good idea not to be an donkey-cave and be cool with proxy and give aa nnob some minis, if he hasn't enough.

 OneEyedALice wrote:

 The Riddle of Steel wrote:

Sure, you could just tell your friends to get better, but what do you do in the meantime, just crush them over and over until they have no fun and quit? Plus, as the weaker player gets better, so too does the stronger player so how does the weaker player catch up? What if one guy plays every week and his opponent plays every month or two? How can the less-active player hope to increase in skill faster than his opponent and catch up?

Nope. I teach them, how to play and where they making mistakes to prevent them from making it again.

 The Riddle of Steel wrote:

Handicapping still rewards skill because people instantly recognize a skilled player by his/her lack of a handicap. I think it is the simplest way to have balanced and fun games. If the weaker player does catch up in skill or list-building or gets a new codex, the advantage automatically fades away if they win too much.

I'm not a psychologist, but I don't think there is any joy of winning, when you have a handicap.
Handicaping is not leads to fun or improving skill. You can not learn to ride bycicle, if you are only coasting.

At last, 40k is not a fighting and does not require any dexterity. You can think before acting and ask an advice from experienced player.

The whole 'learn to play' argument falls apart in time. You can help a lesser skilled player and tell them where they made mistakes. But there will come a time where skill doesn't mean anything. It's been debated extensively that list building is the biggest 'skill' one has in 40k. And there will be a time where, depending on their army, no amount of your tutoring will help their army any further. I can play my Orks or Chaos on point every single game. But if my opponent brings Eldar, Necrons, any of the strong SM formations, then no amount of 'git gud' is going to save me.

The entirity of the game is in an imbalance, and because of inherent and crippling design flaws for the majority of armies, skill can only do so much. Especially in a game of mass dice rolling and redundant and ridiculous charts.

On the ETC 2015 (and remember their restrictions about maelstorm, huh), an ork-player scored 3rd place in player leaderboard. Are Orks weak army?


And about chaos and eldars... If you are about CSM - they are most deadliest enemy to eldars and SM gladius nowadays. Yeah. Heldrakes and 3+ guys is not so cool pairing.
If you are about CD - daemon deathstars are still pretty strong, even if the times of deathstars are gone.

At last, "win the game" != "wipe out opponent".
You can win the game with no any dice rolled, if you wish.

And yeah, I think there is some imbalance, but it can be fixed by creating homebrew units. I think it's much more interesting way, than just handicaping.

 OneEyedALice wrote:
On the ETC 2015 (and remember their restrictions about maelstorm, huh), an ork-player scored 3rd place in player leaderboard. Are Orks weak army?


And about chaos and eldars... If you are about CSM - they are most deadliest enemy to eldars and SM gladius nowadays. Yeah. Heldrakes and 3+ guys is not so cool pairing.
If you are about CD - daemon deathstars are still pretty strong, even if the times of deathstars are gone.

At last, "win the game" != "wipe out opponent".
You can win the game with no any dice rolled, if you wish.

And yeah, I think there is some imbalance, but it can be fixed by creating homebrew units. I think it's much more interesting way, than just handicaping.

A very specific Ork build gets close to winning =/= a strong codex. A strong codex is when you can bring multiple build types and still score a REASONABLE chance at winning.

As for homebrew, yeah, no. The issue with home brew is people tend to have an idea of what they THINK is balanced, but it isn't. That falls on either side of the spectrum. They make something they think is solid, but is actually pretty bad. Or they make something TOO good. Or they just don't cost it properly. And you can't expect home brew outside of friend circles to fly. It's not a better solution than handicapping, which is also a bad solution.

And yes, you can win games without rolling dice. I've done it before, only tossing dice for run moves. But that's a boatload of fun. I totally play a war game to not wage
war.

I'm not saying my armies are absolutely terrible. But I'm also saying the L2P argument has been proven incredibly condescending and false no matter how you try to spin it.

 OneEyedALice wrote:
And yeah, I think there is some imbalance, but it can be fixed by creating homebrew units. I think it's much more interesting way, than just handicaping.

Just to be clear, are you talking about house-ruling underpowered/overpowered/just wrong units (which I'm all for) or inventing new units altogether (which is interesting but probably a little much for most groups)?

The issue I have is that this is trying to systematize what should be social behavior with a regular group. And it falls apart there.

A play group will do things like this on its own, organically, without any need to make a specific set of rules. Once the rules are created, you run into the issue of people trying to exploit those rules because "hey, the rules say this". Handicapping or list tweaking is better in the hands of personal judgment on a person or club basis.

The intent I think for this is "rising to the occasion".
Not everyone is happy with being "forced" into becoming a "better" player.
What is proposed is the losing player continues to play at his level and the winning player proceeds to play with less.
This I admit is great for people starting out for not getting completely hammered and being demoralized.
BUT I like playing people who beat me.

I figure out how to play better and learn new things.
I rarely learn anything from someone I obliterate (and desperately try to avoid doing!).

I must admit I played first person shooter games and got quite good at it so with my friends I was not "allowed" to use certain guns until the ratio of kills for and against evened out.
Problem was: I got even better.
Adversity makes you recognize a need to improve, it is part of life.

Training wheels are helpful to get you going but at some point you just have to learn how to ride that bike.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

 OneEyedALice wrote:
And yeah, I think there is some imbalance, but it can be fixed by creating homebrew units. I think it's much more interesting way, than just handicaping.

Just to be clear, are you talking about house-ruling underpowered/overpowered/just wrong units (which I'm all for) or inventing new units altogether (which is interesting but probably a little much for most groups)?

Both, I think.
Our system works just like "- Hey, folks, I created/modified a unit. Can I use it?" and the others voting and making suggestions. If it's too overpowered or completely useless - we fix it same way.

Handicapping just sucks because of how it makes both players feel. I dumbed down my Necron list one time (Transcendant C'Tan, scarabs, infantry, no Decurion), and played against my girlfriend. I still completely annihilated her. I didn't out play her or anything, my army is just much better than hers (CSM). And she feels like she's a terrible player because she still couldn't win, and I felt bad because she felt bad.

Now, in the reverse, let's say she won. She wouldn't felt like I was handing her the game by purposely handicapping myself, and I wouldn't felt bad simply because I know I could've beat her, and I had to hold back.

So no, I don't believe handicapping is the right thing to do.

I tend to disguise a "handicap" match as a "scenario".
If you have played a bunch of times against a friend's army you have a pretty good idea what it would take to even it up.
You make the story good enough, the rewards worthwhile enough, points balance can be thrown to the wind with the intent of a close match.

@krodarklorr: ever switch armies with the girlfriend for a couple games? Give her an idea where the "terrible" performance may be coming from.

I appreciate all the good feedback and suggestions. A lot of good points.

From the poll so far and the comments, it sounds like the majority opinion is that formally letting one player have more points is a bad idea even though most seem to agree the points GW assigns many units are not balanced. But because the games are officially unbalanced by a neutral and respected third party (GW designers), people are happier with that than letting the natural evolution of a handicap automatically correct this imbalance because it would make victories feel hollow (even though most people agree Necrons vs CSM is so one-sided right now that the victories are hollow). So I ask why not use a method of natural selection to find a more balanced point value than the ones GW arbitrarily assigns?

But it seems most people prefer any system (even imbalanced) as long as it is official rather than a more equitable system for assigning points that is unofficial.

I do like the suggestions for house rules and non-symmetric scenarios. They accomplish the same thing but are more arbitrary than a systematic approach. But people seem to prefer the fact that they mask the handicap rather than make it obvious. The downside is that it takes more work and agreement between all parties to make the scenarios and ensure they have the right amount of "skew" fir the two opponents.

Interesting thoughts. I'll have to contemplate this a bit more, it seems.

@anti-handicap arguments

Not buying it. The game as a competitive venture is a joke, if your gonna get gud might as well do it at a game that actually rewards player skill.

Besides, you'll get better naturally over time even with a points advantage - learn to beat the pro with 50% extra points, then with 40%, then with 30%... until its even.

Why? Because it leads to longer games and interactive games. Its a lot more productive to spend six turns moving, shooting, analyzing threat ranges and all that 'strategy' that goes into the game, than it is to practice putting models on the table and taking them off again by turn 2.

I love it in theory. For a while I kept a journal of my opponents and our respective win-loss records vs each other, assessing myself a 5% points handicap for every victory I had over them.

People took offense to it.

Did you discuss it as a group idea first? Or did you just do it off your own back,, because that would probably be why they were offended.
If there is an open discussion on a way to balance the game amongst everyone, no matter what method is decided upon, it is unlikely to offend as there is buy in and consent.
Doing other players a "favour" would come across as patronising.

Lol, I've never been part of a war gaming group that could agree on anything. Any group greater than four people is plagued by arguments, apathy, and grudges. Any big house rule only goes through if you've got someone with enough strength of personality to bull everyone into playing their way.

(Then they usually act like "everyone" wanted to do it that way.)

 Talizvar wrote:
I tend to disguise a "handicap" match as a "scenario".
If you have played a bunch of times against a friend's army you have a pretty good idea what it would take to even it up.
You make the story good enough, the rewards worthwhile enough, points balance can be thrown to the wind with the intent of a close match.

@krodarklorr: ever switch armies with the girlfriend for a couple games? Give her an idea where the "terrible" performance may be coming from.

I have, but she's too proud to let me help her build a Necron list and just brings what she likes. Last time she brought Sword and Board Lychguard, Flayed Ones, and some standard infantry. And before that (with the 5th edition codex) she brought a Monolith, Doomsday Ark, Wraiths, Deathmarks, and a Triarch Stalker, filled out with infantry. Both times I squeaked by with a win, but that doesn't say much. I know more about my army than she does, and also doesn't like taking tactical advice from me.

 krodarklorr wrote:
I know more about my army than she does, and also doesn't like taking tactical advice from me.

Ah well, it was worth a shot.
She must not be feeling too bad to ignore your help.
I always liked women to be very much their own person, so I think you have a winner there regardless.

 Talizvar wrote:

 krodarklorr wrote:
I know more about my army than she does, and also doesn't like taking tactical advice from me.

Ah well, it was worth a shot.
She must not be feeling too bad to ignore your help.
I always liked women to be very much their own person, so I think you have a winner there regardless.

Oh absolutely. I just don't like when she gets upset and won't accept help. Makes me feel kind of useless.

But the point still stands, handicapping isn't fair to either player.

I feel the effort in developing and applying this handicap solution would be better spent just fixing the codices yourself.

 Blacksails wrote:
I feel the effort in developing and applying this handicap solution would be better spent just fixing the codices yourself.

That's the biggest thing for me if you're trying to use this as a way to fix Codex/List imbalance.

As a way to handle player skill imbalance after that's been handled... Maybe, depending on how it's executed and what sort of players are involved.

I don't know if anyone here plays 'Go', but their "handicap" solution is something that's quite easy to replicate in 40k. While in go, you do get extra pieces, which I would not do in 40k, those peices go in specific area's of strategic importance, so you start with the tactical advantage, but then you still have to play well to have a chance at winning, and depending on the disparities in skills, you can get more or less bonuses. The biggest thing, though, is that rather than making it easier for the newer player to win, it makes it harder for the more experienced player to win instead.

In 40k, if you know you're playing against someone far less skilled than you, you can set up first and give them first turn. You can simply give them extra victory points to start with, or let their victory points count as double. You can let them set up terrain or set up half the terrain and then start with the alternate terrain deployment. Let them select table sides first. Let them place 2/3 objectives instead of half. Things like that don't mess with the basic premises of the game, like point values or random psychic powers/warlord traits but still offer a way to level the playing field a bit so both the less skilled and more skilled player has increased fun.

 Dakkamite wrote:
@anti-handicap arguments

Not buying it. The game as a competitive venture is a joke, if your gonna get gud might as well do it at a game that actually rewards player skill.

Besides, you'll get better naturally over time even with a points advantage - learn to beat the pro with 50% extra points, then with 40%, then with 30%... until its even.

Why? Because it leads to longer games and interactive games. Its a lot more productive to spend six turns moving, shooting, analyzing threat ranges and all that 'strategy' that goes into the game, than it is to practice putting models on the table and taking them off again by turn 2.

Noob can play against noob and the pros can watch their game and advice them.
Pro can play against pro and the noobs can watch their game to learn some dirty tricks.
Run a local tournaments, leagues or whatever you want. It will help people to start playing better.


There is balance between factions. Yeah, some of them works like G18 in MW2 - they kick your ass, as long, as you don't know how to play against them.
I can agree, that some units are completely useless, while the others are auto-choise, but any army has a good potential.