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.

After the last big tournament, my buddies and I were exhausted from all the super competitive play that went on. We were discussing how much more fun 40k is to play in a limited fashion, like we do when teaching the game to new players. We hit of the idea of having formats like Magic: the Gathering. Accepting some limitations to the game to limit your opponent to similar restrictions may actually result in a game that is more fun to play for both sides. The idea would be to see who can play the best, not who owns the most broken collection. And so "Standard" format is born:

40k Standard format

1500 pts
No special characters, flyers or fortifications
3 troop choices minimum (2 at least 10 models per)
No duplicate units outside of Troops(Transports OK)
0-2 Elite, Fast Attack, or Heavy Support

Codex specific wargear/power ban:
Necrons: mindshackle scarabs
Grey knights: Psybolt ammunition
Dark Angels:
Chaos: Axe of Blind Fury
Orks:
Tau:
Tyranids:
Blood Angels: Blood Talons
Space Wolves: Jaws of the World Wolf
Space Marines:
Dark Eldar:
Eldar: Runes of Warding
Imperial Guard:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. Needs suggestions for overpowered wargear/power bans for each codex.

Yay! DCI has finally arrived on Games Workshop-town!

Erhmmmhhh .... Beside the fact that I personally I don't like very much arbitrary restrictions like these and I strongly recommend against them if even a single player doesn't agree...

I think that you are simply missing your objective... a flat limitation of choices will probably cause more "theme-less" armies than balanced ones. Also the simple removal of SCs is not going to work: You simply ban certain armies this way like paladins, Sanguinary guard, DA wings etc...

Also the only two pieces of equip you listed as "banned" are hardly game-breaking ones... MSS are truely annoying I know, but it's your duty to came up with counter-tactics, instead of simply charging headlong in a MSS equipped unit. And I simply don't see how the axe of blind fury is OP... It's a nice, strong piece of equip, but still reasonable...

So I think you'd better simply limit certain units (just for example):
-Necrons: Night scythes, which are still spammable with your format, Wraiths
-Grey knights: Psyflemen dreddies
-Chaos: Helldrakes
-Space wolves: Long Fangs, Grey Hunters (!!!!!)
-Eldars: Jetbike Seer Council, Runes of warding
-Imperial guard: Vendetta, Manticore

Hope it helps... Cheers

Punkow: Read the whole thing: Flyers are not allowed!. Runes of Warding was under discussion and now added to the list. Psyriflemen dreads use Psybolt ammunition is what makes them Str 8 correct? Lets ban that so they aren't so annoying. They won't have more than one in this format anyway( No duplicate units outside of troops)

yes...

While we're at it, can we ban anything with ap1 or ap2? It makes it too easy to kill tanks, and can we ban anything that uses a large blast template or a flamer template? They make it too easy to remove models from horde armies.

chaos0xomega wrote:
While we're at it, can we ban anything with ap1 or ap2? It makes it too easy to kill tanks, and can we ban anything that uses a large blast template or a flamer template? They make it too easy to remove models from horde armies.

I Lolled

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit... If you want to play unlimited format 40k that's fine...this just gives a baseline for discussion with your opponent on how you want to play the game.

This border closely into the Deny The Switch rule proposed last year. A butt-hurt player makes a rule to nerf an army he hates.

No one is going to attend a tournament where specialized units/powers/attacks/etc have been eliminated dor the purposes of making the game fair. Good lists can fail and terrible ones can win, its up to the players and the dice to decide.

If you don't want to play against the super-duper competetive players, don't play tournaments. I rarely play tournaments because I like having fun.

I play competitively quite regularly. I'm just trying to create discussion on what can be more fun; a super cheese fest, or something resembling an "actual" army. The idea would be to see who can play the best, not who owns the most broken collection.

What you're proposing pretty much already exists, its called comp scoring and most people despise it and it unbalances far more than it fixes. If you want to play something that involves more skill and is perfectly balanced then play chess.

As for resembling a real army... i've never read a statement that made me rofl so hard.

That's why it's "parenthesis". Why all the attacks? Any suggestions for making the idea better? Comp scoring never works because there are inevitably some who will abuse it, and it only punishes; doesn't prevent abuses.

Yes, give up on it or go look up the comp scoring system and base it on that. Keeping a running list of things that are forbidden is just poor form, you are not a game developer (presumably) and like most gamers probably dont really know what balance is beyond a vague understanding of the term and therefore you wouldnt know how to achieve it. Looking at your list i dont really see anything broken that i've had issues dealing with after the first time i encountered it. It looks more like a list of things you havent been able to figure out how to deal with.

We are attacking it because this is a poor way to deal with "competitive" lists. With an infinite amount of combinations, are you really suggesting that watering down everyone's lists is going to make everyone feel good? Some people like special characters, DA for example, wouldn't be able to field Deathwing as troops, but Grey Knights still can. Is that fair?

Also, I've played in a fair number of tournaments for a variety of systems (some of them far more balanced and in some ways less competitive for 40k). They are ALL draining. Any tournament I play in, even those I win, inevitably results in burn-out. It has nothing to do with all the powergaming going on, it has to do with the fact that you're having a marathon day of gaming, and youre likely stressing out hoping for the win. Your proposed "rebalancing" will probably leave you feeling just as stressed as otherwise.

Yeah, you guys think your talking to some kid. I've been playing since 2nd ed came out. I play at least once a week and have won 3 local tournaments in the past 3 years. I know what it takes to compete, and am quite capable. It's just not fun to play the rock/paper/scissors that unlimited 40k has become. If both players agree to limitations on army construction, they can break out of the cycle of "who has the brokenest collection111111!!!!"

Dear Madness... This kind of idea has been proposed before and everytime it gets thunderstomped, for some good reason I think. Still, if you want to go on with your idea, surely you can (and I did my part suggesting what is clearly unbalanced IMHO) but do not expect people to agree with you on dakka because this will never happen.
Also, and please know that I don't want to give a negative judgement, seeing that you consider the axe of the Blind OP, that you simply didn't consider Necron flyers and that you didn't exactly know what a rifleman dread is, I had the impression that you don't have a great understanding of what currently is seriously OP... But of course i can be totally wrong...

If tournaments put more emphasis on comp scores, I think that would eventually sort out the problem. Uber Power gamers would never win a tourney because their comp scores would be so low. Until that happens, no proposed solution will ever work.

If you don't like the super competitive lists that are taken to tournaments... don't play at tournaments....


Seriously, I don't really like that aspect of the game, if someone says to me before a game, that he is bringing a super powerful list, because he's practising for a Tournament, I'll play him, at least he was decent enough to be honest about it. Just stick to friendly games within your group, and rather than limiting what people can take, just have a verbal agreement, that no one is going to be THAT guy.

Punkow: I faced two Psyriflmen Dreadnoughts and 2 Dreadnights in the last round with other Grey knights to taste. What I hated, was what I had to bring to compete with such lists. It was disgusting what My army did to the less cheezy lists, but that is what I had to do to compete. I'm just trying to initiate a discussion on what we could do to make the games more about how you use your army and less about owning 3 of the latest, greatest most broken units. No I didn't get slaughtered. He had 3 models on the table at the end.

The limitation on bringing no more than one of any unit outside troops limits how extreme an army can be. Psyriflemen aren't the problem. I had a whole squad left. Its 3 of them and 3 of the other broken unit and 2minimum troop choices and "counts as troops"; the whole purifier order or ALL the paladins in the galaxy in every battle just gets really, really old after awhile.

Sounds like it was more of a case where you needed to modify your tactics and adapt to the situation, rather than blame the opponent for being able to field such a list.

 Madness! wrote:
I play competitively quite regularly. I'm just trying to create discussion on what can be more fun; a super cheese fest, or something resembling an "actual" army. The idea would be to see who can play the best, not who owns the most broken collection.

Step 1 to making a balanced "standard" tournament format: stop trying to make universal rules that apply to all armies. A "no non-troops duplicates" or "0-2 heavy support" limit does not have the same effect on all armies, so it doesn't provide balance. For example, Tau are hurt a lot more by "no duplicates" since they only have one elites choice, while an IG player has access to squadrons and lots of similar choices (for example, taking a Medusa and a Manticore). The only way to make a balanced format is to give up on nice simple specific rules and adjust the point costs of individual units (after extensive playtesting) until you have a balanced metagame.

Also, quit whining about flyers. They're part of the game, and banning them makes as much sense as banning 2+ saves or units of more than 10 models.

So essentially I think there are 3 routes to go here (not that I am in favor of any.)

1.) rewrite point costs to reflect usefulness of a unit.
2.)ban specific units or war gear.
3.)limit options.

If I were going to do this I would probably opt for 3. What I mean here is part of what you have already done, but less heavy handed.

No duplicate choices.(other than troops)
2(maybe 3) flyers max.
Must take an at least 1 fast, heavy, elite and a third troop prior to taking a second choice in each category. Must have 2 in each slot and 4 troops to unlock the third slot.
This also includes allies so you must include 1 of each slot in primary before you include an allied detachment.

Bascially there will always be cheese. Even if you comp a tournament people can still turn up with the best list allowed. It's pointless and just penalises players.

What's better is to have 4 categories - best general, best painted army, most sporting and best overall. You cannot win more than 1 category. That way everyone has fun.

Well it would be pretty easy to eliminate cheese, but the amount of rules needed to do so would make the game no fun for anyone, generally be arbitrary, and kind of silly.

Breng77 wrote:
Well it would be pretty easy to eliminate cheese, but the amount of rules needed to do so would make the game no fun for anyone, generally be arbitrary, and kind of silly.

like the ones in the OP?

Pretty much. Of those posted only row is really super powerful. But the army that contains it not so much.

A limited format with some choices banned or limited can be quite fun and enjoyable.

Many players like it better than Comp scoring, because there's no subjectivity; they know coming in whether their list is acceptable within the rules or not. Clear expectations and communication are key to people being happy.

Ultimately whether this could be a viable format is entirely dependent on your local community and what they enjoy. Some folks are absolutely attached to their one set "standard" list, with flyers, or with three FA choices, or a certain special character, or what have you, and will no doubt feel excluded by your restrictions. That's a reality you have to negotiate and decide if you're comfortable with.

If you put on an event like this and it has good attendance, and people enjoy it, and people give you positive feedback, you know it's a workable idea. If people don't attend, then you know they definitely don't like it. Folks will vote with their feet and their wallets. If your friends and you want to try something different, there's no harm in trying.

I do recommend being open to feedback on options and restrictions from your local community. And make sure you observe good general practices for organizing a tournament, like communicating the rules clearly ahead of time, making sure you're properly staffed and stay on schedule, and making sure you have plenty of terrain.

I play magic since 1998, it has his standard and other, and yet abuses keep coming (snapcastar mage for example). I have far more fun using whatever I want, that for any game that I put money into.

I've played Magic: the Gathering. Standard is more a of a money sink/money making machine than Games Workshop could ever hope to devise. Every few months you have to shell out a hundred dollars for the latest cards, unless you want to lose.

In a way, though, 40k is "standard" by default, because everyone uses the latest codices. But at least each codex is just an update, and new ones only come out every 5 years. "Legacy" 40k would be a format where you can use codices dating all the way back to the rulebook codices of early 3rd edition, when the current game engine first appeared in a recognizable form.

Also, about your proposed set up, you are removing a lot. No special characters? That would greatly reduce the number of builds. If "no flyers" includes Flying Monstrous Creatures, you are basically screwing over Daemons and Tyranids. In fact, making Elites 0-2 with no duplicates also screws over those two armies. If you want to make a super-restrictive tournament, you need to make sure of three things:

1. Armies are balanced, more so than in the main game(otherwise why are you even doing this)
2. All the bannings make sense, and don't seem arbitrary or excessive
3. Fun builds should still be possible, and even encouraged

What you are proposing right now is huge Troops blobs vs. pie plates. It probably won't accomplish what you're looking to accomplish.