sounds like an interesting and easy to implement local meta solution

_________________
AFK with real life, still checking PMs

It's interesting that some are posting that the points modification system originally presented might force people into limiting their list options which I don't believe at all and certainly didn't he fantasy days. Wouldn't this system of limiting the player discourage them from ever running anything but their strongest option? Perhaps that's what happens in your meta anyway so this system would work better.

This is my point of view as well.
EpicUK's Championship Roll of Honour is a good example of this. 5 different winners in the last 10 years. The good players win games. They find ways to win with different armies.

As for all playing the same rules interpretations... .
Here we go again. It's completely obvious how that argument will turn out...

Unless we're suggesting we all just play how the rules are written in the book? I'd like that

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

Handicapping players would certainly provide a different form of the tournament game. The handicapping system in Shogi works extremely well, but is obviously based on a single set of units used by both players. The major difference is that EA has many formations and units with widely different properties.

The main problem is that handicapping is making a broad assumption that the lists are inherently balanced, so that a series of games between a 'weak' player and a 'strong' player should come out roughly even, and over time as the weaker player improves, the handicap should reduce to zero.

However should a given list actually be Over or Under powered, players ratings would be artificially skewed either way which would affect their use of other lists. Further, when a player swaps to another list he may not do as well until he masters the appropriate strategies and tactics for the list, artificially reducing his rating for that period. Should he revert to the original list at that point, he or the list may temporarily appear to be artificially 'overpowered'. Indeed this drop in ratings may actively discourage people from using new armies.

The other significant issue is that the mechanism balances the strength of the players, not the relative strength of lists, formations, units etc, or their interactions. As such I suggest it reduces the usefulness of such tournament games as data towards balancing the lists, and would thus make balancing everything that much harder.

Good idea Onyx, now if only the book actually had properly written rules in it

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

Sounds like a reasonable idea to do what it's intended to do, i.e. adjust a local meta without having to get people to agree to change the lists.

Personally I too think it's players, but I'm not sure I would actually like a player handicap. It sounds like it makes sense, but I don't think my ego could take it being reminded of how much worse a player I was than my opponent OK maybe not, but there is also the fact that it would have the effect of evening out result, by which I mean it removes the whole point of tournament play - i.e. to exercise one's skill. If you win a tournament, what does it mean? That you played better or were luckier than you normally are?

Secondly (and this applies to both types of handicap) - how are you then going to know which lists are the top tier lists/players without an exceedingly complicated system to correct for the effect of the handicap itself. You'd no longer be able to simply look at a set of results and know who the best players were.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

To be fair, rules interpretation is only part of the issue. Taking a extreme example, playing EA over a table with no terrain would obviously tend favour armies with long range firepower over those based on close assault capabilities. This in turn would tend to influence views over a list's power and development decisions. Indeed when Sotec went through the original exercise to reduce the power of the Eldar in 2008, he ended up largely discounting games played outside his own group because of the differing meta and interpretations.

Given that the tournament meta, the opposing armies and the player's different skill levels all impact the way a given list plays, to my mind the larger question is whether as a global community we can find ways to provide 'balanced' NetEA lists despite these influences. If we can indeed end up with an agreed set of balanced lists, tournaments can then be handicapped if desired to create a more level event.

It'll depend on the player and their personality. I think our group is more motivated by a desire to play with an army because they like its style or because they want to build and paint it, rather than any desire to win at all costs. So mileage will vary, but I think it would lead to a more varied winners circle as well as some top rate ball busting (another big motivating factor, locally).

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Quoted for truth!

Perhaps GW knew this and why they included the 5 min warm up in the rules of the game...

_________________
Just call me Steve.

NetEA Rules Chair
NetEA FAQ

Want to play Iron Warriors in Epic Armageddon? Click HERE
Some of my Armies.
My Hobby site.

I guess the other point I'd make on this is I've learned more and become a better player precisely because of losing to better players than me. I genuinely find that a couple of games really hard games against the top guys are worth a dozen against people at my own level. I'm not saying its a bad idea (in fact I think its well worth someone experimenting with), just that an unintended consequence could be stimying the creation of competition for the best players. In that sense incentivised race rotation could be an equally valid option for those concerned about imbalance to explore.

_________________

I don't know about this idea; some of these tournaments require a 4,000km flight and that would be a long way to go with an army that has a chunk missing.

It's clearly a well intentioned idea, but unlike golf where a handicap doesn't stop players coming to try win the $1,000,000 prize, I think the effect in Epic might be to encourage attendance only every second year

I have to agree with Dave. Our group is more concerned with playing enjoyable, fluffy lists, rather than power gaming and winning at all costs. Despite all the times I've lost to Dave (or anyone else for that matter), I've never thought I needed handicap to even the odds. It's more of my needing to become a better player.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Ya, you could go the other way around and give the non-winners bonus points. The more I think about it though any system like these are going to end with certain lists being used less or people playing less in a competitive environment. They're all bandages, none actually fix the skill disparity. More games would fix that, especially against good players, and would also have the added benefit of people playing more.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Maybe every time we play, we play the tourney rules, scenario with objectives. Hardly ever stepping out to play a scenario.

I play in two to three tourneys a year. The rest of the time, pick up games. In my experience, its you! I beat myself more often than not. New England group has some excellent players, one mistake and your FUBAR. Thankfully this group is not as hard faced as the Argentina football group. Beer, laughs, and smiles try enjoying your expensive ass hobby.

This is an objective based/combined arms strategy game. Focus on the Objectives and use the right tool for the right job.

Personally. If handicaps are in place, I would throw games. Thats right, purposely lose! Say you lost the first game at Cold Wars. Not the other guy, you did something stupid! Like forgetting to field a unit, shitty dice, bad luck. Little chance your taking first. AdeptIcon is next week. darn it, throw the next two games. I would take last place and roll into AdeptIcon with + 300 points.
But I am not an ass. I am happy just to play a game I have been in love with for 25 plus years.
If people are abusive within the list structure, why would one assume they would not abuse the handicap system?

_________________
mattie
http://maashes.blogspot.com/

I don't think you've thought this through. All you need is someone to run a local tournament for you the week before you fly. You could call it the "Beat Shadowlord" tournament!