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.

biztheclown wrote:Here's the proposed rule:

“Except for the Troop category, no army list may contain duplicates of any Unit Type in a single Force Organization category.”

That's fine for a tournament that wants to promote greater diversity of models, but it's problematic from a fundamental design standpoint. All it does is make different armies winners. Arguably, the FOC is supposed to be the official balancing point, and armies of triple Holo-Falcons should be legal.

IMO, the problem isn't with dual Lash / triple Heavies. The problem is that Tournaments are badly scored with insufficient emphasis on Painting, Comp and Sports be a major part of the scoring. If The Most Important Rule is to ensure that everybody has fun, then it's a mistake for Sports to be weighted less than Battle.

For example, suppose the scoring system were as follows:
30% Sports (0-6% per game, 1st tiebreaker)
20% Composition (0-3% per game + 5% judged; 2nd tiebreaker)
20% Painting (0-3% per game + 5% judged; 3rd tiebreaker)
30% Battle (1-6% per game)
+10% Opponents favorite / Judges awards

Would Nidzilla still be a major Tournament power when the combat advantage of no more than 2% per game (10-15% overall) is weighed against a Sports and Composition penalty that could easily be twice as large?

When the game is scored to reward those players who make the game fun for their opponent, then doesn't that go a long way towards forcing players to self-police themselves?

Vaktathi wrote:Restrictions like those proposed are faulty on several counts. They affect different armies in different ways at different points levels.

The problem isn't with the FoC, it's that the codex designers need to do some *actual* playtesting.

The problem isn't with multiple elites or HS choices, its with Unit balance and points level.

Tournament rules with arbitrary FoC restrictions don't take into account differences between codex's and the relative value of such to each army, and what the balance of power looks like afterwards. In fact, some may be satisfied with an imbalance as long as it is a *different* imbalance.

I completely points levels and FOC slots have very different effects on different armies. You can easily (intentionally or not) stack the system choose different winners this way.

I disagree that playtesting is the answer. GW does enough playtesting for what is fundamentally a beer & pretzels game. Per my post above, I believe the problem is with the *scoring*, which should be brought more in line with beer & pretzels play.

Mannahnin wrote:The real problems are a) that GW doesn't playtest well enough, and b) that the Force Org chart doesn't scale at all based on game size. They've got a much more effective version in Warhammer, with Core, Heroes, Special, and Rare units. The minimum number of Core, and the maximums for each of the other categories, scale based on the size of the game.

That said, I think the "no non-Troop duplicates" restriction is certainly a worthwhile thing to try, at least for some events,

As above, I don't think that absolute balance is a GW goal. From Jervis' recent column, one can infer that GW targets a 90-95% balance level (1 or 2 games out of 20). Also, I don' think that 40k is meant to have a scalable FOC, as GW deliberately chose NOT to do this for 4th Ed or 5th Ed. 40k scales by having additional FOCs. This is more modern, when you think about armies being structured into divisions / brigades rather than some amorphous blob that grows or shrinks. Also, the WFB system has wierd distortions as well. Try getting a Tomb Kings player to sign up for a 1999-pt game instead of a 2000-pt game.

Polonius wrote:I think that virtually all comp/theme paradigms have failed, for the simple reason that armies are created to work in different way, emphasis different virtues, and span a long time. To expect all of these codices to conform to a single post hoc (created after the fact) scheme is a recipe for failure.

The opposite method, having each opponent judge how "over the top" a build is can be equally difficult. Rigid unworkable objectivity can at least be planned around, unguided subjectivity is really hard to predict.

Rather then create a convoluted scheme for docking tri-falcon eldar, or expecting each opponent to decide whether that army is fair, simply cap the number of fully kitted falcons. A few examples, for 1500pt tournaments:
1) No eldar army may include more than 2 holofields
2) Only two dakkafexes may be taken
3) No army may include more than 1 Lash

Comp/theme rules are failures from the start, because they invalidate what should be perfectly legal, valid armies from a GW standpoint. It's really insidious this way.

I really don't see a problem with having a big subjective piece in the scoring. If you get enough soft scores, then that works just fine overall. After all, we choose our Presidents this way...

The last method you mention is quite possibly the worst possible way of doing comp. First, it requires tremendous effort in going into every possible unit and combination, and then assigning (subjective) weights of "goodness" of what should be allowed. There was a WFB group that tried to do this, and what a disaster that was for the less-played armies. They abandoned the effort after a couple years.

Astronomi-con, a very successul series of tournaments in Canada and basically the adepticon of the great white north, uses a variation of this in their comp.

Instead of eliminating them completely, they base their comp system around it. You start at 20 points and get a nick here and there for duplicates and triplicates or going beyond a certain qty in all the FOC choices.

I think it works really well in their 1500 point tournaments but doesn't scale well in larger ones. It also gives freedom to the player, he can still play the tricked out list, he just needs to play it well.

Drop pod armies and the like do get a bit of a pass though imho, so our local group tournament runner has modified the system a bit to compensate.

My main beef is this. GW's rules are already enough as it is.

I personally, would not attend any tournament that imposed self rules, nor would anyone in my league, which is roughly around 20 players if we all show up. If you have a problem with the rules, create your own house rules. I'm fine with that. However, in a tournament, GW rules should be followed, imo. I've played in quite a few store sponsored tournaments and the general player base would have your head if you tried imposing non-standard rulings.

My two cents.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think that virtually all comp/theme paradigms have failed, for the simple reason that armies are created to work in different way, emphasis different virtues, and span a long time. To expect all of these codices to conform to a single post hoc (created after the fact) scheme is a recipe for failure.

The opposite method, having each opponent judge how "over the top" a build is can be equally difficult. Rigid unworkable objectivity can at least be planned around, unguided subjectivity is really hard to predict.

Rather then create a convoluted scheme for docking tri-falcon eldar, or expecting each opponent to decide whether that army is fair, simply cap the number of fully kitted falcons. A few examples, for 1500pt tournaments:
1) No eldar army may include more than 2 holofields
2) Only two dakkafexes may be taken
3) No army may include more than 1 Lash

Comp/theme rules are failures from the start, because they invalidate what should be perfectly legal, valid armies from a GW standpoint. It's really insidious this way.

I really don't see a problem with having a big subjective piece in the scoring. If you get enough soft scores, then that works just fine overall. After all, we choose our Presidents this way...

The last method you mention is quite possibly the worst possible way of doing comp. First, it requires tremendous effort in going into every possible unit and combination, and then assigning (subjective) weights of "goodness" of what should be allowed. There was a WFB group that tried to do this, and what a disaster that was for the less-played armies. They abandoned the effort after a couple years.

I actually agree with you on Comp/Theme. I think that theme is something to be celebrated, just like painting, but comp restrictions are virtually impossible to create evenhandedly.

As for you not having a problem with subjective scoring, by your own admission you want B&P sytle scoring for a B&P style game, and I agree that subjective scoring works well in smaller tournies. I like it, when I'm in an environment where I know my army will get a decent shake. I've had opponents ding my comp when I brought an all infantry guard army. I don't care who you are, an infantry company is a dynamite sxample of a good comp and theme.

I think your argument actually transcends comp scoring though, in that you clearly see 40k as an amusing diversion with little to no competitive play potential. You're probably correct, but I'd make that more clear in your posts, because otherwise it's not as helpful to people that are trying to buid something competitve out of 40k.

As for my suggestion: it was right off the top of my head, and it could have problems, but I'm of the opinion that 40k, and it's codices, are actually far closer to balance then some people think. One or two tweaks by the competitive gaming community could eliminate a staggering amount of the imbalance. For evidence you only need to look at tournament results: not every RTT is won by nidzilla or tri-falcon eldar! That said, a huge number of armies have troubles with both, but rather then ask a person who just got wiped by nidzilla to judge it's comp, why not have the person judge the overall theme, while knowing that he's playing within the comp rules?

Anyway, it's a good discussion, and an important one, but its been raging for at least 10 years, and I doubt it'll end soon.

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Comp/theme rules are failures from the start, because they invalidate what should be perfectly legal, valid armies from a GW standpoint. It's really insidious this way.

I really don't see a problem with having a big subjective piece in the scoring. If you get enough soft scores, then that works just fine overall. After all, we choose our Presidents this way...

The last method you mention is quite possibly the worst possible way of doing comp. First, it requires tremendous effort in going into every possible unit and combination, and then assigning (subjective) weights of "goodness" of what should be allowed. There was a WFB group that tried to do this, and what a disaster that was for the less-played armies. They abandoned the effort after a couple years.

I actually agree with you on Comp/Theme. I think that theme is something to be celebrated, just like painting, but comp restrictions are virtually impossible to create evenhandedly.

As for you not having a problem with subjective scoring, by your own admission you want B&P sytle scoring for a B&P style game, and I agree that subjective scoring works well in smaller tournies. I like it, when I'm in an environment where I know my army will get a decent shake. I've had opponents ding my comp when I brought an all infantry guard army. I don't care who you are, an infantry company is a dynamite sxample of a good comp and theme.

I think your argument actually transcends comp scoring though, in that you clearly see 40k as an amusing diversion with little to no competitive play potential. You're probably correct, but I'd make that more clear in your posts, because otherwise it's not as helpful to people that are trying to buid something competitve out of 40k.

As for my suggestion: it was right off the top of my head, and it could have problems, but I'm of the opinion that 40k, and it's codices, are actually far closer to balance then some people think. One or two tweaks by the competitive gaming community could eliminate a staggering amount of the imbalance. For evidence you only need to look at tournament results: not every RTT is won by nidzilla or tri-falcon eldar! That said, a huge number of armies have troubles with both, but rather then ask a person who just got wiped by nidzilla to judge it's comp, why not have the person judge the overall theme, while knowing that he's playing within the comp rules?

Anyway, it's a good discussion, and an important one, but its been raging for at least 10 years, and I doubt it'll end soon.

I agree that celebrating theme is a good idea, in theory. But theme should be something other than "finding the optimal way to kick ass and make little girls cry". Often times, themes are smokescreens for WAAC. For example, a theme be celebrated more than somebody paying homage to the iconic Ultramarines? If one were to make an army themed around celebrating Nazi Germany / White Power, should *that* be celebrated?

Theme will express itself in Comp and Painting. A well-themed army will have excellent Comp and be painted showcase the themed elements. From a practical standpoint, I choose to ignore Theme as something that should be scored separately.

With respect to Comp and Painting, I rank them as subordinate to Sports and Battle, because they are more subjective. I also include Judged scoring as an offset.

But my suggestion for "B&P-style scoring" simply means that I want Battle to represent a relatively small portion of the overall points, with other factors to predominate the selection of an overall "winner". Similarly, I want Sports to represent the largest single element of the game, and to clearly dominate over the other factors.

At this point in my life, I no longer believe that 40k should be approached as a competitive sport, and this is reinforced by TMIR being in the rulebook. That doesn't mean that it's merely an amusing diversion, because I've gone through the whole "kick ass and take names" stage of 40k. I've even got the "Best General" award gathering dust to prove it. Now, I just think that people should go back to the rulebook and focus on TMIR ("fun"), 1500 pts, etc. rather than pretending that 40k somehow needs or intends to have all this seriousness about competition. I mean, we don't get wound up over competitive Checkers / Draughts, so why should 40k be any different?

I think it's perfectly fair to have the opponent judge Sports and Comp *after* the battle. It's the opponent's choice whether to play tough or not. If someone brings a hyper-optimized (and fully legal) Nidzilla to and then uses it to Massacre the opponent, rather than simply "win" a competitive game, then they deserve to be zeroed out on both accounts for failing to abide by TMIR.

In short, I'm asking tournament organizers to expect players to conduct themselves with the same notion of "politeness" that the Mods ask on Dakka, and then to adjust scoring accordingly so that such behaviour is emphasized and rewarded in the scoring.

Competitive tournaments are easy enough to organize. The organizers draw up the lists, and players can bring the miniatures to match the list they want to play.

John, excellent explanation, and a great way to explain why you think the way you do. My only response would be to say that just because YOU have moved past 40k for blood, not everybody has. The hobby still has new blood who like to play hard core, and there are plenty of silly vets like myself who take playing toy soldiers seriously.

So, I would say that rather trying to shoehorn how you want to play in with how, say, Stelek wants to play into every single event, I think there should be a range. Ard boys have no comp, many local tournies are fluff bunny parades, that sort of thing.

The only issue I take with your comments is that you want Sports to be the biggest factor in determining best overall. Not to be overly dramatic, but a tournament is by definition competition. I think sports is an excellent tool for moderating the worst of competive behaviour, but to turn a "tournament" into a competition of who can provide the best set of games for their opponent while not running into anybody that is a chipmunk is, while laudable, not exactly the sort of event I'm going to pay a lot to attend. Sure, for $10 store tournies with doorprizes and the like, it'd be fun, but I'm not going to be thrilled that the guy winning a battleforce or Baneblade did so because he's a great guy that went 1-1-1 with a well painted army, while a guy that went 2-0-1 with a gorgeous army got docked because his third opponent took a loss hard.

My point, as long winded as it's been, is that a system built around trying find out who is the best gamer assumes that everybody else is at least an honest gamer. In an environment where everybody is having fun and people work hard to give everybody a good game, isn't everybody a winner already? Your analogy to Dakka works here: the mods don't award prizes for "most polite" or "best poster," rather they ensure a minimum level of politeness. I think that's how tournaments should run (although I'd want the minimum politeness to be far higher then here on Dakka), and I think that the same principle could work for comp.

Nurglitch wrote:Competitive tournaments are easy enough to organize. The organizers draw up the lists, and players can bring the miniatures to match the list they want to play.

There has actually been talk in the past about doing a Contract Bridge style 40k tournament, I don't know if it ever materialized. I think the problem there is that people will select the army they think is most powerful that they have the models for. I don't know the exact nature of your theory on codex/list balance, but I'm pretty sure you ascribe little power difference between them, while I claim a signifigant if not overwhelming power spread.

One interesting approach that I just thought of would be to have all the players rank each army (except their own) from top to bottom in terms of comp. This eliminates any objectivity, but it also eliminates the "what spanked me must be cheese" factor. It replaces 3-5 opinions on comp with many, and while it'll only work in torunaments under 25-ish players, that's the vast majority of tournaments out there.

That's my point, it's the job of the organizers to determine how the armies are going to be balanced. Armies aren't the only things in tournaments. Specific board layouts would be required as well. When you factor in specific mission and board layout, then balancing the armies is much easier.

Nurglitch wrote:That's my point, it's the job of the organizers to determine how the armies are going to be balanced. Armies aren't the only things in tournaments. Specific board layouts would be required as well. When you factor in specific mission and board layout, then balancing the armies is much easier.

I'm actually not sure what your point is (not an unusual experience to be sure). I get that if you basically set up scenarios, then army balance is diminished, but I think you're drastically underestminating the work it would take to balance terrain, missions, and prebuilt armies.

I have no objection to special build tournaments. If the tournament wanted to allow only 1 elite, one fast attack, and one heavy choice-why not? Some armies would be favored, some not, same as now. Presents a different test of building skills.

Tournaments may favor one army list over another in more subtle ways. Stelek, for example, is running a RTT where the boards are going to be heavily forested. Other tournaments have very little terrain-favoring shooty armies. Just played at a new friend's house where the board turned out to be about 10 feet long-then the 3 Basilisks appeared..... At my house we usually use a 5 foot wide board because that's two 2.5x8 foot tables pushed together. The boards at one GW store are only about 3.5 feet across-who needs Godzilla nids with boards that narrow??

As a relative beginner trying to have some competitive games with my son, I'd like to see some events divided by experience or age level.

The scoring system is broken IMO. I think grading wins by points is insane. Top level tournaments should be single or double elimination on VC, nothing else. Double Elim because some missions might really be unbalanced, and going first can make such a difference....

Compared to balancing all possible armies and terrain, it's a virtual cake-walk. In absolute terms it'll take some number crunching but it's far from impossible, and not nearly the chore that you might imagine if you consider it from a purely combinatorial perspective.

Polonius wrote:John, excellent explanation, and a great way to explain why you think the way you do. My only response would be to say that just because YOU have moved past 40k for blood, not everybody has. The hobby still has new blood who like to play hard core, and there are plenty of silly vets like myself who take playing toy soldiers seriously.

The only issue I take with your comments is that you want Sports to be the biggest factor in determining best overall. Not to be overly dramatic, but a tournament is by definition competition. I think sports is an excellent tool for moderating the worst of competive behaviour, but to turn a "tournament" into a competition of who can provide the best set of games for their opponent while not running into anybody that is a chipmunk is, while laudable, not exactly the sort of event I'm going to pay a lot to attend.

My point, as long winded as it's been, is that a system built around trying find out who is the best gamer assumes that everybody else is at least an honest gamer. In an environment where everybody is having fun and people work hard to give everybody a good game, isn't everybody a winner already?

Your analogy to Dakka works here: the mods don't award prizes for "most polite" or "best poster," rather they ensure a minimum level of politeness. I think that's how tournaments should run (although I'd want the minimum politeness to be far higher then here on Dakka), and I think that the same principle could work for comp.

Thanks, Polonius.

When I got into playing 40k heavily, GW GTs still focused almost exclusively on winning and WAAC-style play, and this was heavily reflected in scoring. To win that Best General award, I deliberately took a hardcore army with a selection choices that maximized my win ratio. And I played pretty hardcore VP aggregation and denial tactics that made it extremely difficult for my opponent. I did this deliberately, secure in the notion that winning out would give me excellent chances to win overall, regardless of how my Sports and Comp were perceived. Looking back, I'm glad I was just too physically and mentally exhausted for the final (I drew, hence Best General instead of Overall), because I now feel a little bit bad about what I did back then.

So the question I now ask is whether tournaments should encourage WAAC play even among new players. If Tournaments really are the showcase and golden standard for the hobby overall, why should we encourage WAAC-style habits among new players as the default?

In other words, Ard Boyz are fine, because they're clearly noted as something deviant from the norm.

But it should also be clear that the norm expects Sports to come first. In a game with so many subjective and trust factors, I think it's very appropriate that the Sports be such a high factor.

If GW makes Sports-priority scoring the norm, then the rest will start to fall in line. Wouldn't that be a preferable set of habits to instill for everyone?

I think that gentlemanly conduct should be priority for all gentelmen, at all times, not just when playing 40k, so I agree that it's important. I disagree in that I'm not sure making being fun a competitive exercise is the best way to encourage people to be and have fun. Under a system where opponent score sports was the most important factor in winning, a person that wants to win has to do everything possible to assure that his opponent scores him highly. In your view, this makes everybody play nice. In my highly cynical view, I think it'll lead to really akward and unnatural behavior. For example: is it worth arguing about a LOS decision that will determine a win or draw, when the arugment might cause your opponent to ding your sports? What about people who are 100% convinced that they are always right about rules interpretations, LOS, etc. and find any disagreement to be cause for lowered sports? It's a problem now, and the problem will only escalate as the stake rise.

My theory is that people that play nice and have a good time dont' need sportsmanship scores, and those that don't will abuse them.

In an ideal world, 40k would be the province of those of gentlemanly behaviour, and that Sports would be redundant.

But the fact that 40k has to highlight it as The Most Important Rule is equally telling.

Plus, in a tournament, the players always have recourse to the Judges and Head Judge.

Given the long-term impact of the behaviours instilled by the WAAC approach, I can't imagine how a Sports focus could make things worse.

If one needs to win via argument, then that's a breakdown for both players.

If someone needs to argue all the time, then one can expect that Sports will go back on them, too. And if such behavior is tolerated, that's very much at the feet of the Judges. Perhaps the reason this person argues is precisely because there is no Sports penalty on his score?

I think any problem would be short term, but that is the nature of change. Once the system has been in place for a while, I think people would wonder why they ever played with Battle first.

Since the thread is over and we're breaking out the empty platitudes, I thought I might mention that immaturity and lack of sportsmanship should be expected from a game couched in oppositional or player-vs-player terms rather than as the co-operative exercise that all such games naturally are.

Spoilsport.

I've been to many tournaments out of town with one or two of my friends, and ten or more locals. It's not that difficult to chat with your buddies between rounds and learn who is doing well. Both myself and my friends have been torpedoed in sportsmanship/comp by a local player, and watched as the local boys sat around the table and celebrated their buddies overall win. I've been to tournaments where the organizer and/or head judge has altered scores, worked swiss pairings to give friends favorable matchups, and deliberately set players up with tables or missions to eliminate them from the running. This is not paranoia. I have heard people bragging and snickering afterwords and during events.

I think soft scores are ok if done by checklist, i.e. "Is the army completely painted." or "Are the bases flocked.". I think any subjective system of scoring should have small impact, if any. I enjoy playing the game and painting miniatures. I am a competitive player. I question rules with my opponent often, and try to resolve them amicably. Does this make me a bad sport?

I think if you raise your voice or act aggressively you should be warned at least. Most players I know who are jerks tend not to enjoy themselves and leave the hobby. I don't make friends with people who act like asses. I haven't played anyone in quite a while who is a grade A hothead or jerk. Maybe I'm lucky, but I think in general that 40K players have learned how to compete in tournaments. I work in the framework of the rules, and anyone who goes to a tournament and is shocked to see Mech Eldar or Nidzilla is naive. GW needs to centralise their rules and codex writers, and stop acting like players are all nice and casual. Any system they give us will be worked for advantage, that's the whole point of building your own army.

Yup, that's why I think a proper tournament should involve having the armies built for the players so the player's concerns are: (1) Is my army well painted/converted? (2) How do I use this army to given these missions and those possible opponents?

I certainly get tired of running into the same Eldar and Nid lists at tournaments, so why would I go to a tournament where the lists are dictated in advance? This game is about building and painting your own army. For some folks it's about winning and little else. I might have come across that way in my last post, but I didn't mean to. I really get into this game. When I played Kult of Speed I would make sound effects and drive my little trukks on the table. I like to paint my army and get compliments from others. Mostly I like going to tournaments with my buddies, road tripping and staying at cheap motels, trash talking and seeing how we do as a group.

SInce GW isn't balancing things anytime soon, T.O.'s should try different formats and advertise like crazy. I'm not opposed to fixed lists if there are 25 or 30 plus to choose from. I would try a tournament with no redundant force org choices. However, GW will never back anything that sells less models. They need to balance their game, or Warmachine and AT-43 will keep drawing away players.

Asmodeus wrote:I personally, would not attend any tournament that imposed self rules, nor would anyone in my league, which is roughly around 20 players if we all show up. If you have a problem with the rules, create your own house rules. I'm fine with that. However, in a tournament, GW rules should be followed, imo. I've played in quite a few store sponsored tournaments and the general player base would have your head if you tried imposing non-standard rulings.

You must not attend many tournaments then. Every tournament I've ever attended was chock full of rules that aren't in the BGB. Painting requirements? GW models only? Chapter Approved restrictions? No special characters? Allies restrictions? Resolving disputes with a judge? No Armored Company, Kroot Mercenaries, Feral Orks, etc.? No Imperial Armor? WYSIWYG restrictions? Points scored for sportsmanship, comp, theme, appearance? Special missions? Time limits?

All tournaments have arbitrary rules deisgned to make the tournament more fun or fair to the players. This is just another simple rule that helps fix problem tournaments. If your local tournaments don't have this problem, then don't use the rule.

Krak_kirby wrote:I certainly get tired of running into the same Eldar and Nid lists at tournaments, so why would I go to a tournament where the lists are dictated in advance?

Well, I imagine you would go to such a tournament in order to avoid the homogenization that occurs when players are left to build their own lists. Since the organizers would write the lists, they could guarantee that rarely-played combinations were taken, that no player has the same list as another player, or that unfair match-ups would occur.

Polonius wrote: I've had opponents ding my comp when I brought an all infantry guard army. I don't care who you are, an infantry company is a dynamite sxample of a good comp and theme.

Theme, yes. Comp no. It is an unbalanced army in the same way that a mech army is unbalanced. It has nothing worthwhile for the anti-tank weapons to shoot at causing your opponent to have wasted points on things, same as a mech army has nothing for the anti-infantry weapons to shoot at.

Nurglitch wrote:

Krak_kirby wrote:I certainly get tired of running into the same Eldar and Nid lists at tournaments, so why would I go to a tournament where the lists are dictated in advance?

Well, I imagine you would go to such a tournament in order to avoid the homogenization that occurs when players are left to build their own lists. Since the organizers would write the lists, they could guarantee that rarely-played combinations were taken, that no player has the same list as another player, or that unfair match-ups would occur.

I doubt that. Anything in this format just insures that a different set of homogenized lists will be taken.
How are you going to keep the one marine player from having the same list as another player? Draw straws?

s I stated in this thread http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/208818.page there should be a "Maybe - I don't really care" option in all polls. That's the option I'd pick in this case, but as it doesn't exist you are missing my data and probably others too. It might be irrelevant, but if tournaments are indeed broken it could go some way to explaining the reason.

I agree with Krak_Kirby. He said everything I wanted to say. Just one more thing, as long as there are sports/comp scores that are done by your opponent in each round, I will continue to build my list to obtain battle points. Even a watered down army list can be knocked points if played well.

mkerr wrote:

Asmodeus wrote:I personally, would not attend any tournament that imposed self rules, nor would anyone in my league, which is roughly around 20 players if we all show up. If you have a problem with the rules, create your own house rules. I'm fine with that. However, in a tournament, GW rules should be followed, imo. I've played in quite a few store sponsored tournaments and the general player base would have your head if you tried imposing non-standard rulings.

You must not attend many tournaments then. Every tournament I've ever attended was chock full of rules that aren't in the BGB. Painting requirements? GW models only? Chapter Approved restrictions? No special characters? Allies restrictions? Resolving disputes with a judge? No Armored Company, Kroot Mercenaries, Feral Orks, etc.? No Imperial Armor? WYSIWYG restrictions? Points scored for sportsmanship, comp, theme, appearance? Special missions? Time limits?

All tournaments have arbitrary rules deisgned to make the tournament more fun or fair to the players. This is just another simple rule that helps fix problem tournaments. If your local tournaments don't have this problem, then don't use the rule.

I've never been to any of the GT tournies or Adepticon, but I have been to many GW hosted tournaments.

None of them have every had any other than you must have three colors on a model. Chapter Approved isn't legal anymore. Never been in a tournament that said no special characters. Never seen allies restrictions. Forge World isn't allowed at the GW stores, no loss there in my opinion. The GW store that I play at deems appropriate non-codex armies are those outline in that year's GT packet. So last year Kroot Mercs were allowed, while Armored Company wasn't.

jfrazell wrote:I doubt that. Anything in this format just insures that a different set of homogenized lists will be taken.
How are you going to keep the one marine player from having the same list as another player? Draw straws?

That's easy enough. There's several ways to go about this. One way is that when players sign up for the tournament they, they prioritize the lists that they want to play. The organizers use these lists to determine who plays which list. Another way is blind-draw - players receive an army deal included in the cost of the tournament admission, and no two armies are alike. Another way is to allow people signing up to the tournament choose the list they want to play on a first-come first-serve basis. And so on and so on.

What if they only have 1 list?

How many different armies are you going to take from one army deal? Does that invitiate the whole concept of painting and conversion? At that point why not just have everyone bring the same marine list?

First come first serve-I am sure that will go over well. "First three players-you can build uber competitive lists. You other guys, well sorry about that but pods, skimmers, and asssault cannon terminators have already been picked. "