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.

So I was posting in a thread about a nifty blood angels re-roll power, and had a thought...

In a tournament, or a casual game, no matter what list you play, or how often you play a given list, the game is played with a unique set of units, the structure remains the same, but you keep a relatively static list every round or every game... what if you didn't have that advantage? What if you had your list, and you had to stick with it for the whole tourney, casualties don't come back, you just grind it out until you're out of units.

Seemed like an interesting idea to me, so I decided to flesh it out a bit more... Here's what I came up with:

40k Meatgrinder Tourney Format

List building:
Each player will compose 3 lists, one "Spearhead" list, which will be the list that the player uses in the first round, and will comprise the "core" list for the army throughout the tourney. The "Spearhead" list will fall within the points restrictions given for the the tournament, and the standard Force Organization Chart. The remaining 2 lists, or "Reinforcements" lists, will be no more than 50% of the stated total for the tournament on a modified Force Organization chart.

The "Reinforcements" lists will use the following force organization chart:
1 HQ (mandatory), 2 Elites, 4 Troops (2 mandatory), 2 Fast Attack, and 2 Heavy Support choices

Example:
For a 2000 point Tourney in this format, you would have a "Spearhead" list of up to 2000 points, and a pair of "Reinforcements" lists of 1000 points each, for a total of 4000 points.

Scenario and deployment:
Scenarios will utilize objective-based missions for the purpose of determining a tournament winner, as well as pairings in subsequent rounds, with each round having the same number of objectives. Held objectives count for 2 points each, contested objectives count for 1 point each, unheld objectives are 0 points each. You cannot contest an objective that would not otherwise be held by an opponent's forces. Number of objectives will be determined randomly by a die roll (d3+2) at the start of the tournament, and will remain static throughout the event. Round scores based on held objectives will keep a running tally, highest score from an army at the end of the event wins.

Example:
In a round, there are 5 objectives. At the end of the round, Player A is holding 2 objectives and contesting 1 objective, Player B is holding 1 objective and contesting 1 objective. This means that, based on the scoring, Player A scores 5 points, out of a possible 10, and player B scores 3 points, out of a possible 10.

Deployment may be determined by the tournament organizers.


Utilization of "Spearhead" and "Reinforcement" lists:
The first round of play will involve only the "Spearhead" list, with the "Reinforcement" lists being unavailable for use. Players are not required to divulge any lists that are not being used in the current round, but once a list is included, it must be divulged to the opponent, and cannot be excluded from subsequent rounds of play.

Players may introduce a single "Reinforcement" list into their playable units each round, starting in the second round. A player may only introduce one list into their playable units per round.

In addition, each player must record casualties from each unit, including any applicable wargear. These casualties may be replaced by members of the squad equipped with the default weapons for the squad. Vehicles will start each round with all their weapons intact and all "Immobilized" and any other non-destroyed results removed. Any squad destroyed completely is no longer eligible to be fielded, and is removed from the active list.

Example: A squad of 10 Chaos Space Marines, with Aspiring Champion, 2 meltaguns, and an Aspiring champion with a power fist takes 3 casualties, including one of the meltaguns and the Aspiring Champion. In the following round, this squad will have 11 Chaos Space Marines with 1 meltagun. A squadron of 3 Leman Russ Battle Tanks that suffers a "Destroyed - Wrecked" result and 2 "Weapon Destroyed" results will be reduced to a squadron of 2 LRBTs , but all "Weapon Destroyed" results will be removed for the following round.

Declaring a winner:
Rounds will be scored based on objectives held, as outlined above. Any player who does not have at least 1 Troops slot filled at the start of the next round is eliminated, a player may elect to use one of his "Reinforcements" lists to meet this requirement. Highest total score of the participants will be declared the winner. An eliminated player, once the tournament is completed, is elegable to win, proided his score overall was high enough.

C&C appreciated, and I'd love to hear the thoughts on the viablity of this as a tourney format. I'd be happy to answer any questions, as well.

It sounds like a great idea but how exactly would matches be played as the only aim is to eliminate the opposition so a game of capturing objectives would be unreasonable. Other than that it sounds good and I might try it out

You raise a good point... though, come to think of it, the only thing you'd really need to roll for with this would be the deployment... And the turns at the end of the game... I'll have to bear that in mind with the next drafting of the rules I do...

Though performance could be used to determine pairings...

You do realize that if someone gets tabled in the first round (which is possible) they are done. It also goes agaisnt high risk/high reward units and Armies. Armies that take a beating, but gives a better beating in return.

All in all I don't think it would be fun. Esp when you are facing someone that is double your points. There would be no reason to play the game.

I like the basic idea (have considered something similar a while back) but I think it needs a little tweaking to work.

For one, casualties in 40K aren't necessarily dead. Some would be fit to return to action for the next battle. So some sort of roll-off to determine whether or not casualties return after the battle would be good, and would help alleviate the problem of things becoming one-sided very quickly if someone gets tabled.

Doesn't need to be complicated... 'roll a D6 for each casualty, on a 5+ they return to their unit' sort of thing.


Additionally, I think it would get better results if just wiping each other out wasn't actually the main focus. Players that don't do so well in the first rounds are going to continue to do worse exponentially as their forces get winnowed away. It's not going to be fun for anyone except the winners.

So I would go with making the games objective based, with players being required to achieve those objectives within a very tight timeframe. So, for example, making the games 4 turns, with the objective having to be achieved within that time... so tabling your opponent isn't an automatic win. If you have a 'take and hold' style objective and you spend all of your time wiping out your opponent rather than moving onto the objective, you don't get the objective points.

How about you may return a single unit to full strength for every objective you hold? It would make objectives very important especially later on. Also there should be scoring other than staying alive. Because, later on, if I have one unit and kill 80 but lose that one in the process I lose. Just doesn't seem fair. Also immoblixed should count as destryed because they just move on without it.

Addicted to Bleach wrote:How about you may return a single unit to full strength for every objective you hold? It would make objectives very important especially later on. Also there should be scoring other than staying alive. Because, later on, if I have one unit and kill 80 but lose that one in the process I lose. Just doesn't seem fair. Also immoblixed should count as destryed because they just move on without it.

Few problems with that. Mainly that not all units are created equal. Why do you get back your Nob squad you dumped 500 points into whereas the best thing I can get back is my 1 of about 20 infantry squads worth about 80 points?

I've thought about this kind of format before for campaign scenarios and I've never been able to come up with a way of handling it that would be balanced to all armies. Needless to say, I will be paying close attention to this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Dronze:

So if I table my opponent and lose nothing (as I've actually done before), do I still get to use my reinforcements next round? That gives me 3000 points vs the remnaints that the opponent might have (at least 1 point + their 1000 point reinforcements).

Also, would you presume that a wiped out player could still pick up his 1000 point list and resume playing with just that in the next round, or is he gone?

I dont mean one that was wiped out but add more troops to a damaged unit. But good point so mabye 50 pts of reinforcments to existing units for each objective. Or it could just be scrapped completely.

daedalus wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Dronze:

So if I table my opponent and lose nothing (as I've actually done before), do I still get to use my reinforcements next round? That gives me 3000 points vs the remnaints that the opponent might have (at least 1 point + their 1000 point reinforcements).

Remember, after your game, you'll be paired with another opponent, not the same one you just played, so come round 2, you'll have a spread anywhere from 1000 points to 3000 points, as you'll be working with the remnants of your first list, as well as one of your reinforcements lists, if you so choose.

This is an idea for a tourney format, not a series of games against a single opponent.

Also, would you presume that a wiped out player could still pick up his 1000 point list and resume playing with just that in the next round, or is he gone?

Absolutely that's an option, and it guarantees everyone to get at least 3 games out of the tourney, if not more. That's the reason for using 3 lists. You use what you have, and the "Reinforcements" lists are your reserves in the broader scope of the tourney... where in the game the reserves come in on subsequent turns, the reiforcements lists come in on later rounds.

For one, casualties in 40K aren't necessarily dead. Some would be fit to return to action for the next battle. So some sort of roll-off to determine whether or not casualties return after the battle would be good, and would help alleviate the problem of things becoming one-sided very quickly if someone gets tabled.

Doesn't need to be complicated... 'roll a D6 for each casualty, on a 5+ they return to their unit' sort of thing.

I'll give you that point, and raise the point of how you moderate people who fudge the numbers... I like the idea, though. To modify that, i'd probably say that they get replaced by a regular member of the squad with the default weapon... so if you lose a guardsman with a meltagun, you're not getting the meltagun back, but you'll get a guardsman with a lasgun instead.

So I would go with making the games objective based, with players being required to achieve those objectives within a very tight timeframe. So, for example, making the games 4 turns, with the objective having to be achieved within that time... so tabling your opponent isn't an automatic win. If you have a 'take and hold' style objective and you spend all of your time wiping out your opponent rather than moving onto the objective, you don't get the objective points.

That would certainly help with pairings and placing... you rack up objective points until your army is killed off entirely, and the tourney goes to last man standing... i'm liking where the input is taking this idea, I'll have to propose it at my new FLGS...

You do realize that if someone gets tabled in the first round (which is possible) they are done. It also goes agaisnt high risk/high reward units and Armies. Armies that take a beating, but gives a better beating in return.

It's more of a hard-core format that is, potentially, completely unforgiving to mistakes. That the whole idea...

Also immoblixed should count as destryed because they just move on without it.

Immobilized isn't destroyed, though... that vehicle is still functioning, it's just not able to move. Armor is expensive and valuable to the enemy, and you don't leave your enemy anything they can use, if you can help it.

Shaping up nicely, expect a fresh draft when I get around to it...

Revised!

Here in Australia, there's a campaign-tournament called Tumult, they use special software to calculate casualties but you could probably figure out your own method. It's run locally but I haven't had a chance to participate in it yet, but from what I've heard it's a very different experience. You really need to try to conserve your troops, while simultaneously being just aggressive enough to complete the objectives.

It does tend to result in some lopsided battles towards the end, though, and favours some army builds (ninja Tau...) more than others, but when approached by the players with the right mindset it seems to be a lot of fun.

You can try contacting Wayne who runs the campaign, he might be able to offer a few tips (or even the software that he uses, who knows).

Privateer used a format liek this for a League final event.

In the first round you randomly determine an attacker and defender. If the attacker wins they stay at the same table and suffer unit depletion if they win.

Unit depletion : if the unit was brought to 50% but not wiped out they start the next round with one less model. if they were wiped out they start with two less models. Characters that were killed start with one less wound.

The penalties are cumulative so if a player won twice and a unit of 10 was wiped out twice it would start with only 6 models.

The only problem adjusting this is that vehicles in 40k don't have "wounds" so you would have to adjust a little to deal with vehicles and characters since they don't have wounds or as many wounds as privateer models. So maybe something like:

unit reduced to 50% or less: start with 10% less models rounding down
Unit destroyed: start with 20% less models rounding down.
(this way the max a unit could lose by the last game would be 40% so a unit of five could only lose one guy per turn, while units of 10 would be at 6 and units of 30 would still be at 18)
multi wound IC killed: start with one less wound(not cumulative, it can only happen once)
vehicle destroyed: Starts future games in reserve.


The nice thing about this type of setup is that if you lose ... no penalty. You start over with your full force. YOu only suffer unit depletion if you are winning, so the guys who win the last round are really good players that were probably very challenged to win, but everyone still has fun.

IMO you don't want to have situations where someone gets wiped out and ends up with 1000 pts vs someone who still has 2500. Not only will the player feel like they have no chance of winning, but those tow players wil lend up sitting around for an hour and a half while other more even matches play out.

Good luck with whatever you decide on.

@Mephisopholes:

The format plays out like the Privateer format, it wouyld seem, but both sides are grinding eachother down. as far as ending up with a 1000 v. 2500 point matchup goes, though, you're going to have to have an excruciatingly small field to accomplish that, given that your 1k lister is going to have a total of -0- points come round 2, and will likely be at the bottom of the heap. It forces one to play with a longer view of the tourney than just the game being played. I realize that this format can lead to ugly, ugly things, like having an utter, ungodly amount of IG armor (you can readily fit 7 Manticores into a game, if you play it right) or more troops choices than the chinese army (up to 14 total troops choices), but it's all part of the format itself...

You have to figure out both unit synergy and how to keep your list balanced even if you end up losing large, meaty chunks of it.

I once ran a progressive campaign/tournament at a FLGS in a galaxy far, far away (or so it seems now). It started at a low point value "base army" (500 pts I think), which was an HQ, 2 troop and whatever else you could get within the FOC. The battles would be fought, and casualties would be kept track of for each unit involved for infantry, vehicles were considered repairable before the next battle unless destroyed. There were multiple ways to earn points during a battle, mostly earned in battle but there were some points for painting as well, and if you fielded less than the total points allowed (500), you could save those unspent points into your point pool to be used later.

The point limit of the next game went up to 750. The key was that you always got back your original 500 point force for free... which represented a certain amount of automatic support from the chapter, craftworld, etc. But buying new units, war gear, or replacing casualties beyond the 500 pt "base" required spending points that you'd earned in battle #1. (of course at this point there were no casualties beyond the 500 pt. base, but I think you get the idea). Every week the point limit of the next game went up, (500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000) and you fielded what you could up to the limit. The neat thing was that since you got points for painting, a lot of people (over time) really worked on painting their armies where they might not have otherwise. Also people could be casual about using their "base army units" because they would always be replaced for free, while their special units (bought with points) tended to be highly valued/protected and used vary cautiously.

All-in-all I thought it was a pretty neat approach and certainly led to some interesting decision making. I think the keys to making it work were to balance the size of the base army with the point increase each week and the number of points that could be earned in any given battle... *and* have some ways for people who had a very bad outing to still earn a reasonable amount of points (100 or so) so they could field a viable (if somewhat short-handed) army.

I know it's not viable for a regular tournament format (too much fiddling involved in-between games), but maybe there's something in there that's usable.

Gitsplitta wrote:I once ran a progressive campaign/tournament at a FLGS in a galaxy far, far away (or so it seems now). It started at a low point value "base army" (500 pts I think), which was an HQ, 2 troop and whatever else you could get within the FOC. The battles would be fought, and casualties would be kept track of for each unit involved for infantry, vehicles were considered repairable before the next battle unless destroyed. There were multiple ways to earn points during a battle, mostly earned in battle but there were some points for painting as well, and if you fielded less than the total points allowed (500), you could save those unspent points into your point pool to be used later.

The point limit of the next game went up to 750. The key was that you always got back your original 500 point force for free... which represented a certain amount of automatic support from the chapter, craftworld, etc. But buying new units, war gear, or replacing casualties beyond the 500 pt "base" required spending points that you'd earned in battle #1. (of course at this point there were no casualties beyond the 500 pt. base, but I think you get the idea). Every week the point limit of the next game went up, (500, 750, 1000, 1250, 1500, 2000) and you fielded what you could up to the limit. The neat thing was that since you got points for painting, a lot of people (over time) really worked on painting their armies where they might not have otherwise. Also people could be casual about using their "base army units" because they would always be replaced for free, while their special units (bought with points) tended to be highly valued/protected and used vary cautiously.

All-in-all I thought it was a pretty neat approach and certainly led to some interesting decision making. I think the keys to making it work were to balance the size of the base army with the point increase each week and the number of points that could be earned in any given battle... *and* have some ways for people who had a very bad outing to still earn a reasonable amount of points (100 or so) so they could field a viable (if somewhat short-handed) army.

I know it's not viable for a regular tournament format (too much fiddling involved in-between games), but maybe there's something in there that's usable.

I'm really interested in this.

Any chance that we could see the full document if there was one? (If there is, if you could PM it to me, that'd be awesome! )

Unfortunately the event took place about 10 years and 3 hard-drives ago. I'll think about it a bit and PM you with what I can remember.