PDA

View Full Version : Handicaps in WFB?



Lordmonkey
22-06-2005, 03:06
I had a random thought just now. What does everyone think of handicaps for warhammer? Either to make the game harder or easier for someone?

I thought such a thing could be implemented along the lines of "handicapped player reduces all combat resolution by X amount". Just thought it would be more interesting than playing a smaller army vs a bigger one.

So what does everyone think?

:0)
22-06-2005, 04:07
I take it this would either be to punish someone or give another a challenge. Here's some ideas I have, take what you will:

- noticably more terrain on one side than the other
- extra D6 given to each Invocation of Nehek spell (2d6, 3d6, and 4d6 instead of just d6, 2d6, and 3d6 like usual)
- no "one use only" for carstein's summon bats and summon wolves bloodline powers
- 2000pts vs 1500pts games
- 40k army against a fantasy army, with no point adjusting :evilgrin:
- half the movement rates everywhere
- add wind to the game (treat missile weapons in the same regard as stone throwers, except using the set range limit)
- monstrous terrain (both armies have to kill each other while fighting the terrain at the same time)
- only one hero choice allowed

Math Mathonwy
22-06-2005, 09:06
In my opinion the best way to handicap a player is just to have him make a bad list. I mean, since he has agreed upon a handicap he should just make a list with non cost effective units, lousy magic items and strange combos. Then he can still play to his full ability and the rules are completely fair. I mean, let's face it, a HE infantry army is pretty damn hard to win with. Or a VC army with only a single Necromancer as the sole character or... well, the possibilites are endless, really.

Griefbringer
22-06-2005, 09:15
You mean handicap like in "giving an advantage for a less experienced player"?

You can split these up into two groups, either giving direct advantage for the less experienced one, or disadvantage for more experienced one.

Advantages to weaker (less experienced) player:
-weaker player gets more points
-weaker player gets additional reinforcements during the game (say 300 points worth, arriving on a random turn)
-weaker player gets to set up the terrain so that it gives him a good defensive position
-weaker player gets bonuses to leadership (say +1 to everyone, or just general) to represent veteran commanders
-weaker player gets to make some of his units immune to panic or stubborn to represent their courage in a tight position

Disadvantages to a stronger (more experienced) player:
-less character/special/rare slots than normally allowed
-having to fight a scenario that is challenging for the army (breakthrough with a defensive army, for example)
-make his units unreliable (roll d6 every turn, on a roll of 1 they will not move that turn)
-give all his units -1 to leadership to represent poor quality of commanders

mageith
22-06-2005, 13:59
You mean handicap like in "giving an advantage for a less experienced player"?

You can split these up into two groups, either giving direct advantage for the less experienced one, or disadvantage for more experienced one.

Advantages to weaker (less experienced) player:
-weaker player gets more points

I run a campaign where the basic game is 1500+ vs. 1000 points (native) played as pitch battles. What percent of the games do you think the natives win?*




-weaker player gets additional reinforcements during the game (say 300 points worth, arriving on a random turn)
-weaker player gets to set up the terrain so that it gives him a good defensive position

I never tried the reinforcement option but do give players a 'terrain advantage' such as you suggest.



-weaker player gets bonuses to leadership (say +1 to everyone, or just general) to represent veteran commanders
-weaker player gets to make some of his units immune to panic or stubborn to represent their courage in a tight position

Disadvantages to a stronger (more experienced) player:
-less character/special/rare slots than normally allowed

The first two are interesting. This last suggestion assumes characters are a better value than some units. I'm not sure this is true. I suppose if magic were limited through this rule, it would be true.



-having to fight a scenario that is challenging for the army (breakthrough with a defensive army, for example)

In a recent campaign I let the one player actually choose the scenario from any offical GW publication that would most benefit his army. The chooser failed to win in both cases.



-make his units unreliable (roll d6 every turn, on a roll of 1 they will not move that turn)

This would hurt. It also feels to artificial to me.



-give all his units -1 to leadership to represent poor quality of commanders I think this could be easily overcome.

Most of your ideas are quite good, but I've found, after many years of teaching many players how to play that the difference between a player that gets it and one that doesn't is very, very profound.

I'm fortunate enough to have ten armies. In 5e I gave new player's my Chaos army. It was very point and click in 5e. They usually did quite well against all comers. In 6e, there's no army like that except maybe Skaven which is one of the armies I don't own. The army I do lend out the most is Vampire Counts. They already have lots of the benefits you suggest above.

Ith

*40%

Avian
22-06-2005, 14:25
I have some rules for Uneven battles we use in our campaign (where even battles are the exception rather than the norm ;) ).

Link: Uneven battles (http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~tarjeia/trondhammer/docs/Uneven_battles.doc)

Note: They are based off the Scenario generator (http://www.stud.ntnu.no/~tarjeia/trondhammer/docs/Scenario_generator.doc).

I myself held off a combined 3.000 pt army using my 1650 pts during the last round of the campaign.

Lord Setra
22-06-2005, 15:59
I would say your best bet would prob be having different points costs.

For instance 2000 vs 3000.

There is also the set up of both armies, you could make use if the different points costs and if the player you play against is really good, also have them set in the middle of the table with you surrounding them.

Strangelove
22-06-2005, 23:59
I wouldn't purposely handicap either army, not even for a new army.

The only exception is themed battles. A desperate last stand, an ambush etc. One side will inevitably have a handicap.

McGonigle
23-06-2005, 07:58
1. Give your opponent X amounts of points this can be used to bribe units (or Characters) from your army. These are chosen before the game begins and the name of the units are placed in a envelope. At any point in the game your opponent can reveal your units true alligance and take control of it.

This represents betrayal fairly well although it really doesn't work in some cases (Orcs V Lizardmen etc.)

Bubble Ghost
23-06-2005, 13:42
If you want to do that, do it like golf: just give a victory point boost to the weaker player afterwards. You don't make one player use an extra-heavy ball or a rubber club, you just alter the score at the end. Try the same with Warhammer if you want a handicap system. That way they still learn how to improve at an even, otherwise unmodified game.

Falcon
28-06-2005, 16:05
We have an active balance rule. The player that wins plays the aggreed points e.g. 2000 points. The loser can add 5% to his poins value for every time he's lost agains the winner. E.g. for 2000pts the loser can add 100 points per loss. After 2 losses the loser will play a 2200 point army against the winners 2000 point army. When the loser wins a game he loses 5% of his point cost. After a few games this translates to a standard handycap value. It also ensures everyone wins regularly.

Cheesejoff
28-06-2005, 18:39
Or have it like golf where the superior player loses victory points.

eagletsi1
30-06-2005, 13:09
My thought on handicaps. It just allow a certain number of re-rolls per game to one player based on his record.

It's simple and when we have a non experience player we usually give them some rerolls. 2 or 3. We haven't really come up with the Metrics for figuring it out, but I'm sure some time down the road we will.

eagletsi

Lordmonkey
01-07-2005, 00:30
We have an active balance rule. The player that wins plays the aggreed points e.g. 2000 points. The loser can add 5% to his poins value for every time he's lost agains the winner. E.g. for 2000pts the loser can add 100 points per loss. After 2 losses the loser will play a 2200 point army against the winners 2000 point army. When the loser wins a game he loses 5% of his point cost. After a few games this translates to a standard handycap value. It also ensures everyone wins regularly.

mmm, thats quite a nice idea!