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.

A copy pasta from my blog:

Steamroller Variant Idea: Interdiction, a Reverse Divide and Conquer
As a tournament format, Divide and Conquer is an interesting idea. You bring multiple lists to an event, but you can only play any one list x number of times during that event. The idea is to encourage the play of a variety of lists. Since character restriction is standard in Steamroller 2012, you should be able to see a variety of lists being played at any divide and conquer event.

DSC02356
Big Events such as Lock and Load feature Divide and Conquer


My idea for a variant tournament style is called Interdiction.

An Interdiction delays or disrupts an enemy. In Star Wars, the Interdictors had this tech that pulled ships flying past them out of hyperspace. In a Steamroller environment, an Interdiction is when your opponent tells you you CAN'T play with a list.

Imagine this. You and your opponent each brings three lists. The lists are character restricted, so each feature a different warcaster/warlock and the lists feature different support characters. You will only see Epic Eiryss in one of three of their lists. They will only see Gormand di Wulfe in only one of your lists.

Menite players will only have the Covenant of Menoth in one of their lists.

Here's where the Interdiction comes in.

Each player denies their opponent from playing one of their lists, leaving them with two lists to choose from to play.

The idea is that the end result creates a scenario where players are trying to build three lists they can play with in a variety of situations rather than just using certain lists to create hard counters that they use when playing specific factions.

I think a necessary restriction is to limit the number of times a list can be denied. So say in a four round event, any one list can only be struck twice.

What do you think? Would you enjoy this style of event?

http://pokeminiatures.blogspot.com/2012/01/steamroller-variant-idea-interdiction.html

Neat idea but it does rely on you knowing which of the opponents lists is the most dangerous to you. Then, I suppose the same could be said about the pick your list system.

I'd shy away from it.

1- smaller collections are only penalized so far as lack of variety in regular tournaments (potentially limiting to one viable list), in this setting it would be more difficult for them

2- let's say mercs vs. Khador. The Merc player has only one list that's solid at taking out armor, while the Khador player runs 3 (or even 2) jack heavy lists. The Khador picks anti-armor, Merc picks whichever scarier list and can't do anything about the other.

3- same scenario, but only one Khador jack list. The Merc wants to pick the jack list, but the jack list has already been called twice, so it can't be chosen again, same outcome.

I would say that, maybe, it would be better if each player had only one of these a tournament, essentially as a one-use trump, but that design would probably just favor unbalanced lists, so, again, would have serious balance issues.

This could also be gamed so that you have one complete sand-pounder of a list and two that are more reasonable. That one is ALWAYS going to be the one that gets picked, letting you game the format of the tournament.

It'll get gamed for two rounds if you put a 2 strike limit against any list.

Its an interesting idea and would like to see it in action. It forces everyone to make difficult choices, but again, I do feel it hurts certain factions more than others, which isn't ideal since the ones it hurts are already strapped for caster choices and/or unit/beast/jack choices and character restrictions.

As a Legion player, I'd be down, but as a Croc player, I'd be less than thrilled. Mercs would be tough, and Ret I think would have some issues.

I'd bring Saeryn, pVayl and pThagrosh. I've got Saeryn as my all comers, pVayl beast heavy blitz answer to high arm and schenarios, and pThagrosh as my attrition list.

Problem with being a "croc" or "searforge" player is that those
aren't your only options in a tournament. Playing as a contract
player you're willfully choosing to play with a more limited set
of options than a mercs or minions player. It's like people who
will only play with certain casters or models for whatever reason.
Those limitations are a choice.

Crocs have 3 casters and thats it. Not really any choices to be made and most of their lists are nearly identical/predictable due to low model choices.

I agree on the Mercs to a degree, but I still feel they are hit more than most factions. As a legion player I'm not concerned at all, while other factions are getting screwed which kinda sucks. But thats probably the way it is in normal tournies regardless so meh...

Malfred's point is that crocs are not the only choice for a minions player. You can also use the pigs.
The same goes for mercs. You can limit yourself to one contract but the SR rules don't mandate that limit. In a multi-list tourney you can have a seaforge, a four star and, a Telion list to choose from.

Fair enough.

Again, I'd like to see someone run a tourney with this format and hear the results. I think it has potential and sounds fun. I'd play in it

Probably going to try after Adepticon. We're already doing a
50pt in Feb and a team event in March (25/50).

Consider this scenario:

Player A brings a three balanced lists that cover a lot of bases and deal with a variety of matchups. Player B brings three lists that all do basically the same thing. Player B denies Player A the one list from his three that is the most significant threat to the one thing his lists do, and then Player A is at a disadvantage from the outset because his list denial is effectively meaningless.

And Player B can do that all day, fearing no one unless he squares off against Player Q who also brought three lists that do the same thing, and that thing is the specific ball-stomp to Player B's trick.

It's not as big of a deal when there's three lists, but I've seen that happen a couple times with events that allow players to dictate (even in a small way) what their opponents can play, and it has always created some kind of friction.

-Dis.