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.

I have recently spent time decrying the rise of the death stars in 40k and the general lack of an even playing field between the codices. I don’t think I am alone in my dislike of the new un-killable units and a desire for wider range of competitive builds. However, it is easy to complain about something and it’s a lot harder to offer suggestions how to improve things.
So how can we bring balance to the force? Some have suggested that we ban certain units. This is not universally embraced as it forces the TOs to have to look at every codex and make a decision on the power level of a unit. That becomes untenable when the releases have been coming out in such a rapid-fire way. The criteria for determining if a unit is over powered are also hard to pin down.

I think a more comprehensive structural change would be better as it would be simpler to remember and would not require constant updating.
With that in mind, it’s important to decide what the factors that cause imbalance are before taking an action to address them.

Here are the factors that in my mind bring imbalance:

1. The combinations of USRs from multiple HQs that were previously impossible.
2. Psychic buffing of a unit from multiple psykers with multiple powers.
3. Having units that are miles ahead of anything from other codices and then spamming them to emphasize that difference in power.
4. FOC manipulation through allies or other means that also accomplish #3.
5. Dedicated transports that allow the spam of difficult to kill units outside the FOC.

So all of these are basically ways to manipulate the FOC and disrupt the power level that it was built to preserve. The USRs and psychic powers do this by being force multipliers that might take units beyond their designed power level.

My suggestion is as follows.

1. No FOC slot other than troops can be more than 25% of your force.
2. Allied units are counted toward the 25% in the FOC slot they belong in. So Inquisition Coteaz would be counted toward your HQ limit, Black Legion helturkey allied with CSM is in fast attack and so on.
3. The unit that is transported by a dedicated transport has to cost as much or more than the transport.

So the aim is to force people to take a greater variety of units and prevent spam of uber efficient things. It might not be the perfect solution as it would ding codices that rely on a small number of units to remain competitive. However, I do think that these suggestions would force people to bring more diverse forces that would have a harder time relying on USRs, psychic powers and spam.

I welcome suggestions of how to improve this proposal.

It sounds like you would prefer the Warhammer Fantasy route of Army selection over the current Force Org model.

I personally support this, though I do think it would need to be review after every new codex to ensure power levels ar fair across all races.

The problem would be however that even it 500pts, some factions would still be able to spam cheaper versions of current unkillable units, and the opponent would not be able to stop the unit due to being handicapped by the same limitations.

You also have to consider armies like Grey Knights, they bring Terminators as Troops.

So in all, definately a good idea, however it would require a great deal of playtesting to ge the values right, and certain armies (GK) would have to take penatlies for including some/all units.

Thats just my two cents.

Narric wrote:
It sounds like you would prefer the Warhammer Fantasy route of Army selection over the current Force Org model.

I personally support this, though I do think it would need to be review after every new codex to ensure power levels ar fair across all races.

The problem would be however that even it 500pts, some factions would still be able to spam cheaper versions of current unkillable units, and the opponent would not be able to stop the unit due to being handicapped by the same limitations.

You also have to consider armies like Grey Knights, they bring Terminators as Troops.

So in all, definately a good idea, however it would require a great deal of playtesting to ge the values right, and certain armies (GK) would have to take penatlies for including some/all units.

Thats just my two cents.

Yeah, some builds would be wrecked by this proposal. Even if they are not particularly powerful. So there would be some collateral damage.

Some things would sneak under the new bar as well. 3 annihilation barges are way under the limit at 1750 for example.

However, I think that one of the problems is that we've gone away too far from the limits imposed by the FOC and need the % system to put an end to some of the loop holes.

There's still a lot of stuff that could get by such restrictions, while other armies would have serious trouble abiding by them (e.g. Orks literally could not field Trukks).

that's the problem with every comp system that I've ever seen. There's a ton of fluffy armies that would get ruined, a ton of powerbuilds that can slip by, and usually several unforeseen results that breaks other stuff.

Just because we cannot make a perfect system shouldn't keep up from trying to make a better one.

Plus, my lack of familiarity with all armies is the reason I posted. To lean on the knowledge of dakka to see if we can build a better mouse trap.

Does an ork truck really cost more than 10 boys?

Yes.

Your system also means Eldar Guardians could never take a Waveserpent unless you increased the unit size to the point that they could not embark upon it. Dire Avengers could take a Waveserpent with a full 10 man unit but you couldn't add more than 15 points of wargear to it. It would also be difficult for Kabalite Warriors to take Venoms.

Generally I think most of the proposals are bad.

1. No FOC slot other than troops can be more than 25% of your force.
2. Allied units are counted toward the 25% in the FOC slot they belong in. So Inquisition Coteaz would be counted toward your HQ limit, Black Legion helturkey allied with CSM is in fast attack and so on.
3. The unit that is transported by a dedicated transport has to cost as much or more than the transport.

You are correct, this is far too draconian and unbalanced.

1. Ensures anyone with bad troops is instantly punished. Daemons have essentially 162 points to use for HQs in a competitive 1850 list due to the need to include Fatey. Are transports included, because you just made Serpents king again.

2. I think some kind of ally limitation is fine, but why not just go single FOC including allies at that point? Much easier and effective.

3. Lol...seriously...

Wave Serpents just cannot be taken by troops at that point. Henchman units are forced to unnecessarily buff out to get Razors/Chimeras and even Rhinos. The list goes on.

I've read your posts in the TOF thread, and it seems that you just want everyone to plop down 60 Tac Marines, 100 Guardsmen, or 120 Orks in every game of 40k. I understand that you don't like to play deathstars every game, but have you considered that not everyone wants to play model spam all the time? Or the transport spam of 5th? That not only kills players' wallets but also their backs. It all but ensures tourney games will never reach a conclusion as well.

What you have to understand is that there will always be an ebb and flow to 40k. No one is forcing you to play as a deathstar. You mentioned that you are a relatively casual tourney goer, so why do you even care what the top tables bring? The same guys will always find a way to win. Additionally, there will always be people mad at the way that they go about it. No matter what you do, there will be a population that feels that way regardless. Remember early 6th when IG blobs with Marine HQs were winning? I didn't like going against that either, but that doesn't mean things should be banned outright.

Finally, I'd hold off on any drastic changes, as there is likely a meta shift coming. The average 40k player doesn't think for themself, which is why you see top lists getting ripped off after wins. However, the people who want to do well at GTs are already thinking ahead. The influx of people bringing deathstars will soon be offset by lists created to beat deathstars (which isn't hard by the way, just design an MSU list that hunts their piddly troops).

Overall, I do agree that there is some crazy crap in 40k right now. I do agree that the re-rollable 2+ save is annoying and easy-button. However, I don't think that quickly conceived, over-the-top changes to the game will stop that.

I like the idea of Allies being part of the core FOC. Part of me wants to say no Ally HQ so i can field Tau Gue'vesa, but the other part of me knows someone will just spam a unit Like Grey Knight Terminators as Ally Troops.

Completely missed the suggestion of Dedicated Transports not being allowed to cost less than the unit they're bought for. While I think I can understand the idea behind the suggestion, it does penalise too many armies that would actually need those transports.
A better suggestion would be to return Dedi-Transports to being only usable by the unit they're bought for, until that unit is destroyed. Allow it to act independantly, but it cannot transport another unit unless the original unit is dead.

my two cents ^_^

Narric wrote:
I like the idea of Allies being part of the core FOC. Part of me wants to say no Ally HQ so i can field Tau Gue'vesa, but the other part of me knows someone will just spam a unit Like Grey Knight Terminators as Ally Troops.

Completely missed the suggestion of Dedicated Transports not being allowed to cost less than the unit they're bought for. While I think I can understand the idea behind the suggestion, it does penalise too many armies that would actually need those transports.
A better suggestion would be to return Dedi-Transports to being only usable by the unit they're bought for, until that unit is destroyed. Allow it to act independantly, but it cannot transport another unit unless the original unit is dead.

my two cents ^_^

Is this even an issue? In all my games of 6th ed 40k I have never seen a problem with a DT picking up a unit that wasn't "theirs" and I fail to see how this could, in anyway, be a problem that needs a fix.

You're right, these are changes that would alter the game to be played in the way that I think it should be played. The reason for posting it, is to see if there are others who have similar opinions and how my views can be modified.

The reason that I worry about this is less about what happens at the top tables, nor is it a way to drag people down to my level. Changes like these are aimed to smooth out the ebbs and flow of the game. We would be less beholden to GW to see what crazy crap they throw at the wall next week. Less of a need to wait for that white dwarf allowing flamers to go AP-2 and then hastily throwing together flamers to use for 2 months. Besides, I clearly don't have the mandate to impose these ideas on all (or any really) tournament organizers.

If they are hastily drawn up, the discussion here is supposed to flesh out these suggestions into something more useable.

As for the dedicated transports, first you say that my changes would make them king of the hill and then you say that they would be impossible to use.

Just to clarify, this is simply a way to create a tax on spendy transports. So a squad of guardians would need to get 25 points of upgrades to be able to take a wave serpent at base cost. If people thought it necessary, the change to it can be made to be "squad must be worth the base cost of the transport without upgrades".

That's why we're talking.

I'm going to agree with most of the posters here that your ideas are far too drastic and have too many off target effects that would compromise a large number of builds. However, the idea of adding in a system akin to fantasy is not a bad one. Additionally, making allies and dataslates fit into the overall percentages is a good idea. However, I think it would take a lot of tweaking to get the "correct" point percentages.

Lastly, the meta will certainly begin to shift. Sure, Demons, Eldar, and Tau are some of the top armies, but the builds that win aren't always the same. There is a really good torrent of fire article on the subject of analyzing the armies being played and how they have fared over the last 4-6 months here: http://www.torrentoffire.com/3684/meta-under-the-microscope

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
Yes.

Your system also means Eldar Guardians could never take a Waveserpent unless you increased the unit size to the point that they could not embark upon it. Dire Avengers could take a Waveserpent with a full 10 man unit but you couldn't add more than 15 points of wargear to it. It would also be difficult for Kabalite Warriors to take Venoms.

Generally I think most of the proposals are bad.

So I don't have my codex on me at the moment, but I'm pretty sure you can get to 115 points for a serpent with a guardian squad. Ad a heavy weapon and a spare guy and you are there. Can you upgrade the he m out of t? No. That's part of the point. Would the guardians have the best serpent any way? The. Dire avengers. As the op said equal to or more, so after you buy that 130 point squad of avengers trick them out with a duded up exarch. Part if the aim of that rule is to prevent spamming of serpents, so it would serve that purpose quite well.

As to the write up I worry that there are still ways to muck about and create power builds. Some Death Stars are cheap enough that you could still build them with these restrictions. The 2+++ save is what bothers me the most at tournament. I enjoy the challenge of fighting powerful builds, but when I can't harm most of the army it looses its Appeal.

@jgrand. I believe part of the goal is to get people rethinking lists. There are a lot more hq options without fateweaver. Build a different army. If the meta shifts due to change in the rules in this case, another build would be stronger.

My own interpretation to this would be if not percentage based FOC, the. Tiered FOC. You need equal numbers before you can double up in a single FOC. Troops unlimited, but troop transports be their own FOC. So you can't get that second heavy until you have one elite and one fast attack.

 JGrand wrote:

What you have to understand is that there will always be an ebb and flow to 40k. No one is forcing you to play as a deathstar. You mentioned that you are a relatively casual tourney goer, so why do you even care what the top tables bring? The same guys will always find a way to win. Additionally, there will always be people mad at the way that they go about it. No matter what you do, there will be a population that feels that way regardless. Remember early 6th when IG blobs with Marine HQs were winning? I didn't like going against that either, but that doesn't mean things should be banned outright.

So, as another very casual player (I'd have no interest in tournaments at all, except that they seem to be the only form of conventions that really happen for miniature games) I'm going to chirp in with my reason for caring what the top tables bring. It's because I might have to play against them. If the people that go to tournaments with the intention of trying to place as high as they can want to deal with that stuff, great, let 'em. I just want to hang out with the fluffy people, and the painters, and the beerhammer guys... the people that just came to enjoy a day or long weekend full of geekery and dice rolling. If I could check a box so that I'd only be playing against those guys, I'd have zero cares about Beatstickstarwing dominating the tournament scene (well, a small annoyance that part of my entrance fee would be going to reward their behavior, but I can get over that.)

As it is? I'll sometimes do charity tournaments because my entrance fee is going somewhere worthwhile. Other tournaments though? Meh. I've played against 'top table' armies (and players... or at least player) and I've been assaulted on public transportation. You know what? I found taking a few punches to the face to be a more worthwhile experience because at least it was over quick, and I got a decent story out of it.

bogalubov wrote:
Just because we cannot make a perfect system shouldn't keep up from trying to make a better one.

Plus, my lack of familiarity with all armies is the reason I posted. To lean on the knowledge of dakka to see if we can build a better mouse trap.

Does an ork truck really cost more than 10 boys?

Yeah, a Trukk's like 30/35pts, a 10man Boyz unit with no upgrades is 60pts.

Across-the-board restrictions are bad, bad, bad.

Five Terminators in Land Raiders aren't exactly the best units in the game, but are banned under this system. Why?

The worst codexes get disproportionately punished because they have a limited number of units that actually work, and those units are usually not troops. Eldar have powerful troop options, Blood Angels, not so much. But also because the good codexes have several options across different FOC slots. If I wanted to run six Vypers for my Eldar, I for some reason get stopped from doing that, but no problem, I'll just swap three of them for three War Walkers. No problemo. But what if I were running 3 Baal Predators for my Blood Angels? Oopsies! Guess that'll teach me being a cheesy BA player!

And that unit vs transport cost flat out bans a lot of units/transport combos. Great.

I get that there are certain things in 40k you want to deal with, whether or not they should be is up for discussion, but then at least just deal with those units instead of just taking a massive crap over the poor codexes.

You're right, these are changes that would alter the game to be played in the way that I think it should be played. The reason for posting it, is to see if there are others who have similar opinions and how my views can be modified.

The reason that I worry about this is less about what happens at the top tables, nor is it a way to drag people down to my level. Changes like these are aimed to smooth out the ebbs and flow of the game. We would be less beholden to GW to see what crazy crap they throw at the wall next week. Less of a need to wait for that white dwarf allowing flamers to go AP-2 and then hastily throwing together flamers to use for 2 months. Besides, I clearly don't have the mandate to impose these ideas on all (or any really) tournament organizers.

If they are hastily drawn up, the discussion here is supposed to flesh out these suggestions into something more useable.

As for the dedicated transports, first you say that my changes would make them king of the hill and then you say that they would be impossible to use.

Just to clarify, this is simply a way to create a tax on spendy transports. So a squad of guardians would need to get 25 points of upgrades to be able to take a wave serpent at base cost. If people thought it necessary, the change to it can be made to be "squad must be worth the base cost of the transport without upgrades".

That's why we're talking.

I understand your overall point, but I just don't understand trying to come up with a new system without thinking on it a bit first. Furthermore, you mention that you lack knowledge about many units and books--why even bother trying to fix something you don't have a complete grasp of first? By jumping before you look, you end up with crazy, half-baked suggestions with implications like non-Marine units not being able to take transports. Maybe just outlining your qualms with the game would be more productive.

So, as another very casual player (I'd have no interest in tournaments at all, except that they seem to be the only form of conventions that really happen for miniature games) I'm going to chirp in with my reason for caring what the top tables bring. It's because I might have to play against them. If the people that go to tournaments with the intention of trying to place as high as they can want to deal with that stuff, great, let 'em. I just want to hang out with the fluffy people, and the painters, and the beerhammer guys... the people that just came to enjoy a day or long weekend full of geekery and dice rolling. If I could check a box so that I'd only be playing against those guys, I'd have zero cares about Beatstickstarwing dominating the tournament scene (well, a small annoyance that part of my entrance fee would be going to reward their behavior, but I can get over that.)

No you don't. Most big events have Swiss pairing. At most, you will play against one power list in your first or second game. After that, you will be matched with peers of equal skill/list building prowess. So at worst, you have one undesirable game. How would you feel if competitive players lamented having to roll over a fluffy list and wanted those people out of the hobby? People play for different reasons--most events do a good job of appealing to both sides.

Furthermore, you don't have to attend events that don't fit your idea of fun. There are more casually geared tourneys out there.

 seapheonix wrote:
My own interpretation to this would be if not percentage based FOC, the. Tiered FOC. You need equal numbers before you can double up in a single FOC. Troops unlimited, but troop transports be their own FOC. So you can't get that second heavy until you have one elite and one fast attack.

That's still not a very good rule. For example, it means you can't play Catachan or Elysian themed IG without dragging some tanks or artillery along.

A better approach might be that Elites, FA and HS can each take up no more than 1 in 4 slots, or something like that.

Well that was hilariously dismissive.

Yeah, a Trukk's like 30/35pts, a 10man Boyz unit with no upgrades is 60pts.

60>35 so orks are good to go!

Five Terminators in Land Raiders aren't exactly the best units in the game, but are banned under this system.

Just grab the land raider as a heavy support unit.

Plus you can grab 3 Baal predators as those end up under 439 pts which is 25% of 1750 list.

The idea is to enact changes that are as easy to remember and implement. I did acknowledgement the possibility that this would affect weak codices and actually drive down diversity even more. However, if no one takes BA anyway, what is there to lose by making them crappy under the new paradigm?

I understand your overall point, but I just don't understand trying to come up with a new system without thinking on it a bit first. Furthermore, you mention that you lack knowledge about many units and books--why even bother trying to fix something you don't have a complete grasp of first? By jumping before you look, you end up with crazy, half-baked suggestions with implications like non-Marine units not being able to take transports. Maybe just outlining your qualms with the game would be more productive.

I did think about the matter before proposing it. Hence I've had answers for most of the questions that have come up. I do realize that changes like this would make some lists unplayable, but I would still consider making the changes if I thought the game got better overall. We clearly can't all play with the toys we want to play and be happy. I'll settle for majority happiness.

And the reason to post these ideas is to get feedback. If I don't have people telling me my idea is dumb and I should feel bad about myself for suggesting it, then how do I improve the idea?

Perhaps someone will see this post and try out a few games under the restrictions. Then come back and say what worked and what didn't. Besides what is there to lose by talking about it? I'm not launching a tournament series funded by charitable donations or anything.

Furthermore, you don't have to attend events that don't fit your idea of fun.

I could say that you don't have to post in threads that you deem silly. But neither comment is particularly useful. I like going to tournaments and want the experience to be different. You like posting in threads to weigh in on discussions and try to sway opinions.

I did think about the matter before proposing it. Hence I've had answers for most of the questions that have come up. I do realize that changes like this would make some lists unplayable, but I would still consider making the changes if I thought the game got better overall. We clearly can't all play with the toys we want to play and be happy. I'll settle for majority happiness.

Are the majority of gamers unhappy? It seems like the major events this year have received very positive feedback. Moreover, the go about setting restrictions without re-writing the game.

And the reason to post these ideas is to get feedback. If I don't have people telling me my idea is dumb and I should feel bad about myself for suggesting it, then how do I improve the idea?

Perhaps someone will see this post and try out a few games under the restrictions. Then come back and say what worked and what didn't. Besides what is there to lose by talking about it? I'm not launching a tournament series funded by charitable donations or anything.

Why don't you try them first? Or at least post a run-down of how this affects the problematic and common tourney builds? If you want my honest opinion, I think that alternate scoring formats (like TOF mission 1) is the future of balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Well that was hilariously dismissive.

What about your original post merits further response? Again, you mention that you'd rather be "assaulted on public transportation" than play against top lists. So don't. Or just attend events that cater to your style of gaming.

There was a semi-competitive, semi-casual tournament at my local store recently. Did I go there, beat face, and then complain that people's lists weren't challenging enough? No--I instead went and helped judge. 40k is a community, and I agree with the OP that we need to make sure the game is played in a way that keeps the community going. That also requires that we respect the fact that different people play differently. Instead of hegemonic impositions to try to take away lists you don't like because there is an off chance that you may be paired with one, why not just play with like-minded individuals?

If you want to use a comp system there is swedish comp, it goes unit by unit and book by book and assigns a point to any unit or combination that is considered competative. In theory it allows armies competativeness to be judged by a number system.

Its miles better than anything Americans are ever going to come up with. We don't have groups of people actively playtesting and listbuilding trying to break a comp system.

The system in theory should work to balance "the ebbs and flows" because anything that comes out will get comp points and therefore if you play 0 comp your army will never have to face new competative units. Or if you play low comp games like 1-2 your replacing old very good units with new ones.

Anything short of that is not going to work.


Honestly thought I sigh every time somone offers up suggestions like this, there are only two ways to "balance" the tournament scene, one is extremely limited targeted bans/rule changes i.e. using a scaple to try to cut the very top "gamey' choices out of the pool of all possible lists, or you can work unit by unit book by book and try to rebalance the game on a competative points scale like the sweeds.

The swedish comp system sounds interesting. Do you have any kind of link to a break down of the swedih comp scoring? That would be very interesting.

I've also wondered about a penalty to overly competitive built armies. Perhaps a reverse of the swedish that points are reduced from the overall points from the competitors total.

In this way you could reduce the points of the commonly over powerful armies.

This is just another terrible system that imposes blanket restrictions on tons of different armies in a desperate attempt to avoid appearing "biased". If X is a problem then ban/restrict/change X, don't also ban a dozen other things just so you can pretend that you aren't picking on X.

However, if no one takes BA anyway, what is there to lose by making them crappy under the new paradigm?

Yes, because now that BA player's situation has gone from "I'm probably not going to win, but I can still go and have some fun games with the other people who aren't going to win" to "I'm not allowed to play".

tiber55 wrote:
Its miles better than anything Americans are ever going to come up with.

No, it's a truly awful system that consists of little more than "I don't like X therefore X is banned". Sure, it heavily restricts the obvious balance mistakes, but it also imposes harsh penalties on anyone who isn't playing the game the "right way" even when their armies aren't all that powerful. I find it hilarious that anyone besides the people who created it take such a ridiculous system seriously.

This thread has made me agree with Peregrine. It must be stopped.

If anything you want to go the opposite way to your proposals.

For instance with Eldar you have jetbike spam or serpent spam. Your proposal still allows both these to exist. So what are the main offending lists at the moment:

DE/Eldar Beastpacks
Daemons screamerstar
Ovessa Star/Farsight Bombs Tau
Eldar Waveserpent Spam
SM white scar bikes
Centurion star

So, what are the themes here? They make use of putting a lot of point in one specifc area and make use of allies rules to pass powers/abilites between units.

If you make sure players have to spread points across all the FOC slots, inlcuding elites, FA etc then this can help. For instance allowing a white scar bike army to put well over 50% of their points in troops is hardly a restriction, same for Eldar. The screamerstar, Tau/daemon lists though often have minimal troops and points heavy in another FOC slot. So where you maybe need to be is a min/max % on troops (say 20-40%) and make each army take say 1 unit in each slot - or even 1 unit in each slot before you can take a second (excl troops)? It may still cause problems in some places but is perhaps a better starting point.

Making all allies allies of convenience so they can't pass powers over also balances out a lot of the extremes and is a suggestion that quite a lot of players feel comfortable with.

DA would be almost hit very very hard.

A Deathwing force could not take land raiders.

A Mulitwing force would have to take Azrael.

Orks would not be able to run wagon and speedfreaks would be very restricted.

If a tournament wants to mess with the FoC then that is there choice, but they will always stop people with perfectly valid forces.

The problem is that every single comp system is not about balancing but about someone trying to ban stuff they don't like, for real or imagined issues, but make it look like they are trying to balance by making rules that don't say "X unit is baned". Wouldn't it be better just to say upfront "This and this unit is banned. If you have anything similar ask before bringing it" and be honest about what you are trying to achieve?

I really feel like if you want to "balance the game more" changing the rules (ala LVO with the 2+/4+ re-roll) is probably the better way to go. It does not prevent people from bringing their army as your comp system does (in fact depending on what they own it could prevent attendance in general).

No you can argue whether 2+/4+ is far enough etc. But tweaks like this are far better than mass restrictions that in reality hurt lower tier armies far more than upper tier ones.

I think in reality an FAQ/Errata (which you need anyway) with a few small changes would fit the bill of fixing the "major abuses" in the game, while still allowing things like Deathstar armies to exist.

I understand you wanting to post a 'let's fix it' thread, but you should really review the history of such things to see what the outcome usually is. You won't get much positive feedback, just a list of why your comp stinks, not much to help it along, just comments about how bad it is, and how it restricts the fluff lists that no one brings to a tournament anyway.

Too bad too, I am on your side, but the only way to test a comp system is to use it in a tournament, and you won't get buy in from any of the large tournament organizers. You'd have to run an event yourself with the comp and then see what people thought of it and post the results of the survey like the LVO.

Big tournaments are still very big without all the comp systems. The NOVA has a set-up specifically for people that want to play fluffy non-competitive games with their Narrative. If I go to a tournament with a fluffy list I know I'll get rolled, but I have to accept that and move on, I can't sit there brooding about the cheese lists I'm facing because competition always flushes that kind of stuff out.

As for playing fluffy players by the end of a tournament. That is not always correct. Lots of times you'll get stuck with the people that are ticked off that they placed so low or got beaten. I went to one event where a guy pissed and moaned the entire time we were playing and every time I killed one of his models he was griping even though he was so obviously winning. Tournaments are tournaments, you have to go in with the right mindset.

I'd suggest you organize your own local event and test out the rules you want to use, then post up the results here. Do some studying on other army lists and then see what kind of comp system you come up with.

 Steve steveson wrote:
DA would be almost hit very very hard.

A Deathwing force could not take land raiders.

A Mulitwing force would have to take Azrael.

Orks would not be able to run wagon and speedfreaks would be very restricted.

If a tournament wants to mess with the FoC then that is there choice, but they will always stop people with perfectly valid forces.

The problem is that every single comp system is not about balancing but about someone trying to ban stuff they don't like, for real or imagined issues, but make it look like they are trying to balance by making rules that don't say "X unit is baned". Wouldn't it be better just to say upfront "This and this unit is banned. If you have anything similar ask before bringing it" and be honest about what you are trying to achieve?

The way my original post is set up is to identify the common threads of "OP" lists and then try to address those common problems with broad action.

This allows people who like these rules to opt in knowing the rules from the start. Then you're not relying on a council of eldars to vote on unit strength. It also allows people to take almost all models in the game. The rules just limit the number you can field. It's supposed to make people take a greater variety of units and avoid over representing units that were poorly priced originally.

This won't solve all problems (and will create a few new ones), but the goal is to identify the problem and then address it.

So actually, I would like to take a bit of a step back. If you think my solution is idiotic, you can go ahead and tell me that. However, I would appreciate people letting me know what they think about the common problems that exist with power lists. So the first list I made.

So basically, do what Fantasy does? I rest my case, there's a lot 40k can learn from Fantasy. I'd also incorporate the Fantasy rule of max 3 of the same Special choices, and max two of the same Rare. So, perhaps tweaking that to, a maximum of two of the same Elite choices, and three of the same FA/HS choices. I think this change would do more good than the one proposed, though both would probably work even better.

But onto the proposed idea, I do think this it's a good one, but I would probably have a separate slot for Allies, within which they have their own slots. So, as follows:

HQ: Max 25%
Elites: Max 25%
Troops: Min 25%
Fast Attack: Max 50%
Heavy Support: Max 50%
Allies: Max 25% (the Allied Supplement must then follow the above restrictions too)

There's the option of a separate slot for Transports (Or Dedicated Transports) too, which, whilst being more restrictive, would probably balance things out more. For instance, it would stop WS spam, whilst the above system doesn't.

I guess the danger here though is going to far and, in trying to allow more competitive builds, ending up imposing further restrictions. You'd have to have a good look at all the codices though, to figure out whether, say, 25% max Elites is more restrictive than 3 Elite choices etc.