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.

I have been thinking a bit about introducing handicaps into 40k.

My line of thinking is that generalship aside not all players are equal. In a given gaming group you will have some who enjoy hammering out the hardest possible army the most, others who focus on act out a certain play style, others still just want to paint and show off the coolest models, etc. That besides people tend to have various resources to spend on the hobby in terms of time, money and energy and as if that was not enough the power levels of the codices themselves vary so much that they are regularly classified in tiers.

I also often hear complaints about the power balance of the game and how some player doesn't want to play this other player because his/her army is too powerful/weak.

Taking those things into account would it make sense to use a ranking system to even the odds?

To avoid getting sidetracked, I do NOT suggest this in a setting where you try to compete. In such a setting it does not make sense, and besides any such system would probably be too easy to abuse. Instead the purpose would be to allow people with different focus, codices, resources etc to show up at the local club and have a challenging and close fought battle. It would be a self adjusting system allowing the casual gamer who won't give up his assault guardsmen to take on the brilliant tournament taudar general on equal (as in equal chance of winning) terms.

At this point I haven't even started to think about the handicap mechanics, but the idea appeals to me and it would be interesting to hear if anyone tried something similar and how it turned out!

I face double points sometimes as a challenge. It can make for a really fun game.

Sort of.
I've played plenty of narrative games, where sides are uneven.
It makes for a far more fun game than the standard kill 'em all approach.
It takes a bit more effort to set up the game than normal though.

Well in WHFB the full on tournaments actually compensate you a set number of points based on what army you play... I could see it happening.

Getting a couple hundred extra points could help even things out for new players, but it also might end up being a crutch.

I'd say there's no reason not to try it though.

An interesting thought, and I agree that somehow balancing out respective skills of players makes for a better casual game.
The obvious danger would be getting bogged-down in the details, working out exactly how to balance two players and then how they each balance to a third etc.

The most obvious mechanic would be a difference in points, 2000pts versus 1900. Possibly a limit on FoC's (max 2 of elite / fast / heavy), but that would more likely affect some armies more than others.

I'd be unsure of how to raise this idea with my group. Some players are more obviously in need of the helping hand than others, but how to suggest it without talking down to them? How to talk to the better players without seeming like you're trying to rig the game in the opponent's favour. If you can convince everybody then go for it!

 Quanar wrote:
An interesting thought, and I agree that somehow balancing out respective skills of players makes for a better casual game.
The obvious danger would be getting bogged-down in the details, working out exactly how to balance two players and then how they each balance to a third etc.

The most obvious mechanic would be a difference in points, 2000pts versus 1900. Possibly a limit on FoC's (max 2 of elite / fast / heavy), but that would more likely affect some armies more than others.

I'd be unsure of how to raise this idea with my group. Some players are more obviously in need of the helping hand than others, but how to suggest it without talking down to them? How to talk to the better players without seeming like you're trying to rig the game in the opponent's favour. If you can convince everybody then go for it!

You could do it in conjuction with a ranking board. The difference in ranks then alters the handicap.

I always limit myself to 0-1 riptides that is my handicap.

I play with a handicap by generally drinking more than my opponent... just one benefit of having a good terrain setup at your own house, you never have to worry about driving afterwards!

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
I play with a handicap by generally drinking more than my opponent... just one benefit of having a good terrain setup at your own house, you never have to worry about driving afterwards!

This. Nothing like forgetting to deploy... anything.

Also, have done a couple of narrative or test play scenarios with imposed rules. ("what if i did/did not do something or use a specific unit") It's a good chance to practice fundamentals.

I've started tracking my win-loss record by opponent and army. Whenever I face an opponent, I reduce my points by 5% for every win I have over them with the same army setup. It's worked out pretty well so far.

Thanks for the feed-back!

I started thinking about this after an overdose of tactics threads. It just struck me how most complaints about 40k rules are really about balancing the points making certain builds impossible if you want to win games, which is sad considering we don't get to see a lot of really cool armies and individual minis on the tabletop. Then I recently did some reading on chess ELO rating and Microsoft's TrueSkill and while any such approach would be too exact for a dice game like 40k I thought a rating system might be a way to work around imbalances at least for casual games.

My first instinct was that you could just go with guesstimates and say like: "I always loose with this army, so I brought 100 pts extra". But most people (me included) would probably feel that this is cheating, so an impartial system might be needed.

As I hardly get any games these days this is mostly an academic exercise for me, but if I was to implement it I would use a really simple system. Generalizing Jimsolo's idea perhaps a few simple rules would be enough:

Each game has a base points value that determines the FOC.

Each player has a handicap that allows him/her to bring X% more point to the game, but must still use the same FOC.

If you win you MUST reduce your handicap by 1%. To a minimum of 0 of course.

If you loose you MAY increase your handicap by 1%. To allow people to stay at for example 0 handicap if they wish.

For new players it might make sense to allow bigger jumps for the first 5-10 games in order to reach the correct rating faster. Say adjust 10% the first game, 5% game 2-4, then 2% games 5-10.

If you usually play a certain size of games (1850 seems popular) it would be even simpler to use points instead of percent.

Playing 40k is enough of a handicap.

When I first played against my gf I would give handicaps a lot. Now she wins every game lol

When playing someone new or teaching someone or even just playing someone of a lower skill level, I will often handicap myself by taking less or by taking units I would never otherwise take just to let those models know I still love them or even assist them in building their list specifically tailored to face my list.. Its about having fun.

I play Thousand Sons.

 marv335 wrote:
Sort of.
I've played plenty of narrative games, where sides are uneven.
It makes for a far more fun game than the standard kill 'em all approach.
It takes a bit more effort to set up the game than normal though.

I like this approach. It can also apply to campaign games where one victory condition met = an advantage in the next battle etc. It promotes interesting tactics and the sort of "lose the battle but win the war" mentality somewhat. If you put those OP WWAC armies in strange situations you can sometimes limit them, as they are already prepared with an exact set of rules in mind. Do a meat grinder mission, or an "endless wave" mission and see how your army does. It can take away from the competitive aspects, but it can make the game more FUN which should ultimately be the goal. I've stopped analyzing and comparing and complaining and whining, at least I am trying to. As a game, 40k is broken and imbalanced. So try and have fun with it however you can, in my opinion.

Sometimes, these types of missions can be good to teach new players as well, because they may only have 500-750 points. Having 5 objectives in a 500 point game is a bit stupid. But make it a "hold at all costs" alamo mission for the new guy and attack with waves of Orks or something, to get them familiar with the rules and have a good time. You don't want to discourage new players or those that have a less-competitive focus.

- VardenV2

I do it all the time. Usually it's in the form of taking a weak list style and trying to see how good I can make it.

I'm winning because I'm getting a challenge, and I'm getting a real competition (because with a weak list there is a more serious chance that I lose). And I still get to try my hardest on the table and (within the limits) in list building. And I get to exercise my creativity to boot.

My opponents are winning because they aren't playing the same damn netlist over and over, and likewise, get to figure out how to beat interesting combinations in different ways. They also get a game that's slightly less determined by just a few die rolls, and they're a bit more likely to win as well. This takes the pressure off of them to feel like they're forced into regurgitating a netlist gunline, which will give them the space to do more experimentation of their own, and we both win from that.

And the best part is that it isn't so explicit or quantitative like giving your opponents more points, or giving them free objectives to defend, or whatever.

More varied lists and interesting playstyles, and everybody still gets to try their hardest without anyone getting discouraged. A win for everyone.

I always play with no allies, no vehicles, no invulnerable saves, next to no long range shooting, no AP 3 or better shooting, drop pods that don't come in on turn 1 and a very limited number of viable units, most of which are still overpriced for 6th ed. That's right, my handicap is the Tyranid Codex.

I have an idea, why not play with a modiffied FOC, you have your hq and obligatorie troops, but instead have a the normal choices (3 elites, 3 fasts etc...) just choose one, for example:
A 1500 points game, where you choose to use elites, so, you have to build a list around a lot to troops choices to spente the points, and only thrre elites slots, no fast or heavy options, just elites and your troops, or choose different, intead of elites just use heavy options.
Or to make more handicap, one side use only troops and elites, and the other troops and fast attack options a la planet strike, just and idea

I use a cane.

Game wise, I've handicapped myself many times, 1v2 is the most common for me.

Sometimes I only use 2 riptides

Occasionally if I face someone whose specific build has little chance against mine I will drop a single unit to make it a closer game, but that's about it; and even then I won't do it every time.

Most people here have 1 army which caps at 1750 or 1999. Some veterans have more then one army , but that is it . If someone was suppose to take 1% or 2% less from an army then it would be more like 7-8% , because whole units would have to be droped . Never saw someone play a weaker army , unless someone was starting . But then its more like not having an army yet and not playing with a handicap.

A handicap.....you mean like not taking allies to overbalance armies so you have an army that has no downsides?

Most current players would consider that a handicap. Except Tyranid ones, of course. They are so used to it that giving them allies would throw them off-balance.

where you have three EACH of fast attack, elite, heavy, have only three, to divide among those sections?

I've played with handicaps before, usually against newer players so I don't crush them utterly with my Necron forces. I tend to give a several hundred point advantage to them, and even recommend they select infantry with all those points to give them weight of dice in shooting.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
A handicap.....you mean like not taking allies to overbalance armies so you have an army that has no downsides?

Most current players would consider that a handicap. Except Tyranid ones, of course. They are so used to it that giving them allies would throw them off-balance.

I would object to that if I wasn't currently eating a Tau diplomat.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I always play with no allies, no vehicles, no invulnerable saves, next to no long range shooting, no AP 3 or better shooting, drop pods that don't come in on turn 1 and a very limited number of viable units, most of which are still overpriced for 6th ed. That's right, my handicap is the Tyranid Codex.

And they're still better than BA. Think about that for moment.

For the OP: does it count playing with very little LOS blocking terrain?

Certainly more fun replies to this thread than expected! I'll try out being drunk, using too dark sunglasses and using only my left hand to roll dice!

I think what i originally had in mind was to have a "leaderboard" that tracks the current handicap (in points or percent) of each player. When the players show up for a gaming session the leaderboard shows how many points each player can spend on his/her list.

For example for a 1850 pts gaming session player A and B, who are competitive players with 0 handicap show up to with armies of 1850 pts, player C has a handicap of 3% and brings a list of 1906 pts and finally player D is new and has a handicap of 15%, so he gets to bring 2128 pts. For simplicity everyone would use the 1850 pts FOC.

The original idea was to have this simple system that evens out the odds so that each team (player + codex + actual list) would have a base 50% probability of winning, thus making games more challenging for all parties.

Martel732 wrote:

 PrinceRaven wrote:
I always play with no allies, no vehicles, no invulnerable saves, next to no long range shooting, no AP 3 or better shooting, drop pods that don't come in on turn 1 and a very limited number of viable units, most of which are still overpriced for 6th ed. That's right, my handicap is the Tyranid Codex.

And they're still better than BA. Think about that for moment.

For the OP: does it count playing with very little LOS blocking terrain?

Depends on the army and play style