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.

The better player will learn nothing from winning easily all the time. Even it up a little bit and let the superior player become even more superior by beating larger opponent.

Each person starts out at 10.

Minus 1 for each loss, plus 1 for each victory.

Minimum score is zero.

Handicap is 1% for each point difference.

0 handicap player fighting a 10 handicap opponent would get 20% more points, ie, 1200 versus 1000.

Just don't say better player is getting penalized for nothing. All that extra skill and cunning from beating a 20% larger foe will come in handy at tournament time.

ideas? criticisms? random whining about how it's not your fault you win so much?

The issue would be having to re-write your list after you find out who you are playing, or having to have a stack of potential lists and armies pre-packed and ready to go.

You could grab the idea from the crusade rules which uses command points to help level the field. There you get a number of CP equal to half the difference in your crusade level. This way you would not need to adjust your list every game.

List building concerns could be minimized if the games are pre-aranged and the league runs over multiple weeks.
Other then that, upgrades similar to crusade relics/upgrades (not sure on the term) as suggested above could be used if on the spot list construction should be avoided

I hate to suggest it but might this work better with Power Level?

Gain 1 PL for each loss, lose one for each Victory?

I say this because it seems like it might be easier to constantly tweak a PL list by +1/-1 than to tweak a Points list by +20/-20pts.

Brickfix wrote:
List building concerns could be minimized if the games are pre-aranged and the league runs over multiple weeks.
Other then that, upgrades similar to crusade relics/upgrades (not sure on the term) as suggested above could be used if on the spot list construction should be avoided

I used to play a certain WWI airplane game that will go unnamed. The planes are all well-known.and points comparison rated by peer group players. There was even a printable AI cobbled together based on turning characteristic (A-N or so) and attitude towards opponent (left/center/right) so that each plane's decisions were a simple d3 roll. I considered myself an above-average biplane pilot and it was ... adequate but not a hair-raising challenge. Until I started taking on two AI planes 12" apart with my one plane. That is where the fun really began. You had to perform prodigies of tactics and gravity defying maneuvers to keep one or the other out of your 6. Just try to score a flawless victory (no damage to you). I dare you.

That is where the fun really was. Imagine you an A+ skill player with 2,000 point armylist versus two C-grade newbs with 2,000 points each. Imagine the pride you would feel at victory! Miles better than whipping one newb with your usual uber optimised tourney list that hasn't lost in 8 months. A +20% points advantage for Joe Local Opponent would be that kind of victory. Doing it with +30%? You'd need a smoke and a nap afterwards, honest.

Or would you rather maintain that 100% win record against the same 0% win opponents (like me) as always?

TomWilton wrote:

Brickfix wrote:
List building concerns could be minimized if the games are pre-aranged and the league runs over multiple weeks.
Other then that, upgrades similar to crusade relics/upgrades (not sure on the term) as suggested above could be used if on the spot list construction should be avoided

I used to play a certain WWI airplane game that will go unnamed. The planes are all well-known.and points comparison rated by peer group players. There was even a printable AI cobbled together based on turning characteristic (A-N or so) and attitude towards opponent (left/center/right) so that each plane's decisions were a simple d3 roll. I considered myself an above-average biplane pilot and it was ... adequate but not a hair-raising challenge. Until I started taking on two AI planes 12" apart with my one plane. That is where the fun really began. You had to perform prodigies of tactics and gravity defying maneuvers to keep one or the other out of your 6. Just try to score a flawless victory (no damage to you). I dare you.

That is where the fun really was. Imagine you an A+ skill player with 2,000 point armylist versus two C-grade newbs with 2,000 points each. Imagine the pride you would feel at victory! Miles better than whipping one newb with your usual uber optimised tourney list that hasn't lost in 8 months. A +20% points advantage for Joe Local Opponent would be that kind of victory. Doing it with +30%? You'd need a smoke and a nap afterwards, honest.

Or would you rather maintain that 100% win record against the same 0% win opponents (like me) as always?

What's the point of not naming the bi-plane game?

It's a decent idea but a little clunky. I'd be willing to try it.

Another idea is to ask your opponents to tone it down a bit when playing you. Far as list construction I mean.