Handicap cards for vets when paired against noobs

[Math Mathonwy]

I was brainstorming a system that would allow vets to play against noobs in a competitive setting.

Malifaux is a game of skill and a vet is likely to beat a noob no matter what (barring crazy stuff like a Marcus Pig list or whatever) but some kind of a handicap system might still make it more interesting for both players. I don't like changing the rules (e.g., the vet getting a hand of only three cards would certainly even things out but since cards are used for discarding and such it would alter the balance weirdly) and I would like something more interesting than simply giving the vet 40SS against the noob's 50SS or whatever.

So the idea of the handicap system would be that the vet can play as hard as they can/want and the system should be such that the resulting match-up would be possible under the normal rules. And I woud also like some variance from game to game to the system.

So maybe a set of handicaps tied to cards that would limit the vet in the hiring stage of the game. Five would give enough for different suits and jokers. 14 would give enough for numbers and jokers. 27 would be enough for red numbers, black numbers and jokers but that's so many that I'm likely to run out of ideas.

So anyway, I'll throw some initial ideas, feel free to comment on the general idea, on the specific handicaps, and, most importantly, please suggest more handicaps! Oh, and note that the handicaps don't need to be equally severe.

1. You are not allowed to hire any Henchmen.
2. You need to hire two sets of three identical Minions. If you don't have the minis, try to get as close as possible by choosing similar Minions.
3. Use the same list as you did the previous round but switch out the Master and any Master-specific models that your new Master wouldn't be able to hire. If this results in changing more than 20SS (if you were playing Marcus or Levi or something), then use the exact same list with the same Master.
4. Do not leave any extra SS for the cache and take only a maximum of two Upgrades.
5. Hire only five models in addition to your Master (and if possible, don't use Nicodem, Ramos, Dreamer, Asami, or Kirai).

What do you think?

[Joel]

I think that you'd need a very careful way to defining who is a Vet and who is a Noob even if you ever get a balanced system into place.

I think one option for balancing that you haven't covered yet is a limit of the number of times per turn that the Vet is allowed to cheat fate.  When I demo or teach, this is one of my unspoken self-caps to try and level the playing field, and it seems to work.  You can't do anything about a topdeck, but this can work  - and work without the Noob feeling like they aren't getting a game.

I use the terms you quoted by the way for clarity - I don't like the term Noob myself at all.

[Frozen Feet]

Math M.:

-I ldo like the "no Henchman allowed" idea.

- Take 2 times 3 Minions. Also a nice one.

Joels limited cheat fate per turn is also pretty nice!

 

My first idea is:

Play a 40SS Game and the Vets leader has to be a Henchman, while the Beginner may hire a Master..

 

[Paradigm]

The first time I play a new opponent I tend to go all out, but later games when I start to get a feel for how good my opponent is I try to adjust my list building accordingly. When playing opponents who for some reason are weaker I take the chance to play one of all those sub-optimal lists that I still want to play because they are cool. My favorites here are thematic Last Blossom lists or thematic Monks of the Five Rivers lists. This has led to some really fun and memorable games for both players even when my opponent is considerably less experienced than me.

[Math Mathonwy]

28 minutes ago, Joel said:

I think that you'd need a very careful way to defining who is a Vet and who is a Noob even if you ever get a balanced system into place.

I think one option for balancing that you haven't covered yet is a limit of the number of times per turn that the Vet is allowed to cheat fate.  When I demo or teach, this is one of my unspoken self-caps to try and level the playing field, and it seems to work.  You can't do anything about a topdeck, but this can work  - and work without the Noob feeling like they aren't getting a game.

I use the terms you quoted by the way for clarity - I don't like the term Noob myself at all.

Ah, yeah, no offense meant by the word "noob" - a beginner might be better!

And it would be used for non-competitive competitive events where you wish to codify these things - if that makes sense. Tournaments that are specifically aimed at beginners but that still welcome veterans. And the handicaps shouldn't be harsh enough to make the beginner feel that they aren't getting a proper game out of it.

As for the limited cheat fate - it changes the rules of the game in game. Tthough, admittedly, it does so in a way that doesn't "break" the rules but rather limits the options of the vet in a way that he could choose to do himself (unlike, say, the three-card hand that I used as an example). So yeah, not necessarily a bad idea.

[wizuriel]

Just play Lucius with an in theme guard list

[Squirrelich]

So I  can see how an experienced player might appreciate being forced to mix up their lists,  but I can also see it annoying the hell out of someone who just wants to play with their stuff.  depends on the player, *shrug

 

An alternative could be to have an alternate set of schemes that make them work harder to score. (Don't know if it is a  better idea,  just an alternative that popped into my head.  Don't hate me if you find flaws in it)

For example:

-convict labor be the same but instead of being focused on the center line it is 4"into the enemy's half of the board.

-leave your mark,  first time you score you remove 1 scheme marker, 2nd time you need to remove 2, 3rd  you remove 3

Etc...

 

Allow them to play what they want and have similar options, but make them work harder to get the same result.that way they will still be making similar choices since their schemes are in intent the same, this  "should" allow the new player to feel like they're playing the same  game

[Ludvig]

I just play Lucius when I face beginners. One game Gracie ate almost my whole damned crew in one activation. Sorry, I meant a single Ulix AP  

 

It could be seen as a very apparent slight when your opponent handicaps themselves in such an obvious manner so people could get a bad taste in their mouths.

[Morgs]

If the rookie can only beat a better player when they have a huge advantage then they will never improve. The only way to get better is to lose. You don't learn anywhere near as much if you always win and don't struggle. Git hammered. Git gud.

2 hours ago, Ludvig said:

It could be seen as a very apparent slight when your opponent handicaps themselves in such an obvious manner so people could get a bad taste in their mouths.

This. If I play someone and they gimp themselves because they, by whatever criteria, are better than me then I probably wouldn't play them again because they don't respect me or the game.

If you are a veteran and you are playing someone who isn't even 100% on rules, then take it slowly. If you are playing someone who knows how to play the game then it depends on how competitive the two of you are. If you are at a tourney or in a competitive environment, play to win and honour your opponent by bringing your A game.

[Cadaverousbirth]

Morgs has it. Don't go balls out in someone's first games, but don't do poorly on purpose and rob them of a lesson.

I don't think putting specific restrictions on yourself helps any as a veteran. If you're still a prick your cheesy ultra combo will just be altered to fit that criteria and you'll still win. Be nice, but don't treat people like babies. Unless they are your baby and then let them win, sometimes 

[Norken]

With the way scoring works in this game, I'm not sure why you need to do anything at all.  This isn't Warmachine where they make a slight positioning mistake and everyone is packing up their models one wombo-combo later.  Every game of Malifaux lasts the full duration and if you are just better than them, but they play well and you play poorly in a given game then the score will be closer than in a game where you play well and they play poorly.  This assumes the weaker player doesn't just do something like focus their entire efforts on only one of the strategies or schemes, where their aims is a personal victory in learning to score full points on just that as a step towards learning to pull off all three at once in the future.

 

Giving yourself a disadvantage just seems like giving yourself an excuse to lose without it actually counting, which is ultimately rather passive aggressive.  I always hated listening to GW players saying stuff like: I only lost because I didn't bring or do X like I would have if I REALLY was trying to win.

[Math Mathonwy]

7 hours ago, Morgs said:

If the rookie can only beat a better player when they have a huge advantage then they will never improve. The only way to get better is to lose. You don't learn anywhere near as much if you always win and don't struggle. Git hammered. Git gud.

This. If I play someone and they gimp themselves because they, by whatever criteria, are better than me then I probably wouldn't play them again because they don't respect me or the game.

If you are a veteran and you are playing someone who isn't even 100% on rules, then take it slowly. If you are playing someone who knows how to play the game then it depends on how competitive the two of you are. If you are at a tourney or in a competitive environment, play to win and honour your opponent by bringing your A game.

It's deathly boring to bring my A-game against a beginner. I take an optimized list against someone with the Starter set and Lady Justice box and end up tabling him on turn three. Frankly, I'd rather do something else because I find no joy in that and ultimately joy is why I play. And I'm kinda weirded out by the idea that he'd learn more than if I had taken a less optimized crew and won 8-5 on turn five.

[Tokapondora]

If I'm going up against someone I pretty much know I will defeat I tend to just handicap myself with the crews I'm building and schemes I'm picking, but still going all out when everything's on the table. The one thing I neglect is actively preventing my opponent from scoring and just focus on outscoring them. There's some people in my meta that just aren't that good and it's no fun for either of us if it ends 10-2 every match, so seeing if I can make the most out of a poor set-up while trying not to make it obvious that I'm kicking myself in the shins before the match is a fun challenge on itself.

[Da Git]

What about using the entire box from your chosen master?

For example if taking Misaki, then your list includes:

• Misaki 
• Ototo 
• Shang 
• 3 Torakage 

There are very few box sets where this wouldn't make the game fair against a player that has a limited model pool. Otherwise, if you know your opponent doesn't have a large model pool, run a theme list like mentioned. 

Key thing here is: don't be a jerk!

[The Colour Red]

This game is hard enough to learn without house rules.

 

Since they are likely to have a limited model pool, it might be good to limit yours as well. Taking a Master's full crew is good, and try to stay in theme. Also, try to leave certain power pieces at home (Why, exactly, is Papa Loco running around with Sonia and a Death Marshall?)

 

I emphasize the "don't be a jerk!" mentality. I think if you're playing against a new player, discussion beforehand is a good thing (You're running McMorning, but Santiago here has this ability where he can pitch a card to remove poison). Also discussion after the game is a good thing: talk about the "good plays" and the "bad plays".

[bertmac]

Yep full crew box plus theme models. 

I play kaeris so kaeris, firestarter, eternal flame and 3x firegamin come to 21ss then maybe willie, rail golem a gunsmith plus upgrades. Not the killiest of crews but gives the other player an idea of conditions synergies and triggers.

[Cadaverousbirth]

Full crew box is a great limitation and excuse to use more models than you normally would. Kaeris box is a great example, as are Lady J's , Shenlong's and Marcus' boxes. Just be careful about that pick though, Lynch, Ramos, and Sonnia will still ruin someone's day. Don't be a jerk, indeed.

[enderwiggin]

On Friday, November 25, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Norken said:

With the way scoring works in this game, I'm not sure why you need to do anything at all.  This isn't Warmachine where they make a slight positioning mistake and everyone is packing up their models one wombo-combo later.  Every game of Malifaux lasts the full duration and if you are just better than them, but they play well and you play poorly in a given game then the score will be closer than in a game where you play well and they play poorly.  This assumes the weaker player doesn't just do something like focus their entire efforts on only one of the strategies or schemes, where their aims is a personal victory in learning to score full points on just that as a step towards learning to pull off all three at once in the future.

 

Giving yourself a disadvantage just seems like giving yourself an excuse to lose without it actually counting, which is ultimately rather passive aggressive.  I always hated listening to GW players saying stuff like: I only lost because I didn't bring or do X like I would have if I REALLY was trying to win.

Ultimately, it goes to how well you understand yourself as a player. I used to be one of those GW players you mentioned where, yes, I'd handicap myself to both have more fun and to get better.

My reasoning was that for every model I didn't bring, everything else had to pull more weight, or (given the turn/target limitations) be played to a greater effect. Some of my best games that I've won were hundreds of points under my opponents. I played mainly in 3rd-5th edition 40k (pretty much all armies), but one of my most memorable victories was a 1500 pt Tau list vs. a 2K Salamanders drop list. I simply mounted up my hybrid Tau and rode away from the slow army (after I disabled or destroyed all their vehicles). I shot them to death at a slow piecemeal rate. Utterly boring game, but memorable in terms of list qualities.

My other most memorable game handicapping myself was 1200 pts Tau (I liked their playstyle) vs 1850ish Chaos (player accidentally left a squad in reserve to the side until too late). I lost. However, that game was a nailbiter until the final round and I had three distinct opportunities in the game that I should have played better. I have no indication that (had I did them) I would have won, but I was very satisfied at my level of skill in that game given the points differences involved.

[tl]

I quite like the idea of cheating being restricted when playing a handicap, but usually with new players it's more beneficial to play a teaching game first. Simply have the cards face up from the get go, and explain everything that you are doing and, more importantly, why. The game is not hard to learn, just hard to find the master(s?) you'll be happy with. Because you can stop buying masters at any time. Just like me. Any time now. XD

[Dogmantra]

I think most of the replies here are generally really good advice for teaching new players, I'm definitely one for teaching newbies the "real" game.

But I think what Math was more asking was some way to even the playing field in a specifically tournament/competitive setting, so while "just don't take a super optimal crew" is genuinely good advice for starting to play with a newbie, it's not something you can measure and therefore it doesn't do what Math wants (correct me if I've misunderstood you here Math!).

 

What I don't think works super well for this in a tournament setting is a limited hiring pool/fixed list. I know the reasoning is to put people on a more even playing field, but personally I think that would encourage players who are trying to win to take an all-comers list and make them less likely to try out potentially less-optimal things.

I like the idea of handicap cards to do this because it doesn't try to apply the same penalties to the weaker players. It's obviously something that you'd need to tailor to your group - it could easily come off as insulting.

I almost wonder for a tournament (providing you had the seeds of the players/a good way to rank them already) if you could do something like put out a number of these handicaps ranging from either nothing or very minor (like -1SS during hiring) to moderate (you can't hire any enforcers) to severe (you lead with a henchman, not a master even though it's a 50 stone game) and basically draft them with the weakest (or lowest seeded) players picking first. IDK how that would work out of course but it might be interesting. Might also not be.

 

And now here are some random ideas for penalties, I think hiring ones probably work best for this because it's less to remember during a game, I played the first round of a campaign last week and both me and my opponent totally forgot about the weekly event to cheat at random from your hand to earn scrip:

• No upgrades on your leader
• Get +10 stones to build your crew, before you play your opponent removes 15 stones' worth of stuff
• Opponent picks your leader
• Reveal your crew to opponent before they build theirs
• Don't hire a totem or any models that can summon a totem

[JimClev]

I played in my first tournament in February (Lost Love 5 in Essex) and I enjoyed the games I lost just as much as the one I won. This makes me feel that in a tournament setting it's better not to have a handicap system.

 

Perhaps a really simple system that would work with all crews except Jacob Lynch is to take all the aces out of the fate deck  if the experience differential is very large also take out the 2s.

 

I think it best to leave the jokers in as those very rare "extreme events" are an important part of the game.

 

The newer player would have a slightly better chance of winning duels and getting moderate/severe damage without having to think about house rules.

 

Thoughts?