Switch Theme:

A Tournament Format  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





vaurapung wrote:
To Wyldhunt,

You werent to harsh about what you had to say.

What i have issues with is wanting to play 40k but everyone (my best friends that i play with all the time) wanting me to play in our local shops tournaments. Well in the tournament enviornment im going to lose every game because i didnt buy the bang for buck power models when i started collecting. I have 10000+ points of models that lose every game.

I dont comrehend why matched play games have to be so unbalanced. Your saying that list building is over half of winning a game so for tournaments that have a small player base having restrictions on list building is an adequate answer to the one or two tournament players in the group. Its no fun to host or be part of a tournament that the winner is decided just because someone showed up with a list that cant be countered locally. For example assassins spam.

To Breng77

I missed something, using cp for list building instead of detatchments or pointing out how some armies can get massive amounts of cp while others cannot.

I general have 5 or 7 cp because i run one battalion with one spearhead. And the only things i use cp for are rerolls like 3 times in a game on average.


Regarding your own collection, I feel you. But the guy who puts thought into how different units should synergize and how his army should function as a whole really should have an advantage over the guy who went, "Dude! Hormagaunts look awesome! I'm going to field nothing but hormagaunts. Synapse models look lame, lol." Hyperbolic example is obviously hyperbolic.

Now if your local group has a dramatic difference in power level between a couple of players and the majority of players, you might find yourself in a special circumstance. Asking the players with access to better models to not use those is tantamount to saying, "Hey, could you please make worse decisions so that I'm more likely to win the prize money instead of you?" Blaming them for taking their best options is tantamount to saying, "Hey, I'm going to think less of you and insult you for not handicapping yourself." BUT! In the interest of fostering a strong community and giving the majority of your local gaming group a fair shake, you might look into more restrictive force org charts or events that emphasize fluff, sportsmanship, etc. over victory points. Maybe even run some cooperative narrative events or something. If a couple of guys consistently win because they're the only ones with Guilliman or a bunch of knights, for instance, maybe run a "No Lords of War" format every other tournament. If they're simply much better players, and if the community as a whole is being discouraged by that, maybe run special narrative events where winning isn't that big a deal or team tournaments where you're partnered up randomly each round.

So with all that in mind, I think it's best to try to identify and amend the handful of options that are problematically more powerful than other options. A captain may be slightly more points-efficient than an autarch (or vice versa), but they're comparable enough that they can have a solid game when facing off against one another. Guilliman is so much more points efficient (despite how costly he is) that people tend to not feel so good about facing him and have trouble justifying not taking him in their own army. So the solution there would be to fix Guilliman; not to make broad force org chart changes that cause problems elsewhere.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Piedmont N.C. of the usa

The only problem i have with going that route is how can i prepare myself for making the trip to a big convention for playing warhammer if i start playing by non raw rules to accomadate the list i like to play due to gws inability to create a fair matched play system.

PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





vaurapung wrote:
To Wyldhunt,

You werent to harsh about what you had to say.

What i have issues with is wanting to play 40k but everyone (my best friends that i play with all the time) wanting me to play in our local shops tournaments. Well in the tournament enviornment im going to lose every game because i didnt buy the bang for buck power models when i started collecting. I have 10000+ points of models that lose every game.

I dont comrehend why matched play games have to be so unbalanced. Your saying that list building is over half of winning a game so for tournaments that have a small player base having restrictions on list building is an adequate answer to the one or two tournament players in the group. Its no fun to host or be part of a tournament that the winner is decided just because someone showed up with a list that cant be countered locally. For example assassins spam.

To Breng77

I missed something, using cp for list building instead of detatchments or pointing out how some armies can get massive amounts of cp while others cannot.

I general have 5 or 7 cp because i run one battalion with one spearhead. And the only things i use cp for are rerolls like 3 times in a game on average.



I was responding to Wyldhunts comment about punishing themed armies in my comment.

That said if I were to respond to you I don't think the game can or should ever become "I can take whatever models I want to the table and it should not impact my chance to win." What really needs to be fixed is that ever unit needs to be viable in particular builds, for particular purposes. I don't think you can really ever make it such that list has no impact on the game, if that is the case I should be able to make a list containing nothing but gretchin and naked big meks in orks and expect that I should have an equal chance to win as any other person bringing their models to the table. I don't think you or anyone else wants this to be the case. What people generally want is for balanced "fluffy" lists to be competitively viable. So for you that sounds like Wych cult DE. I agree I would like to see that be better, and there should be at least one build involving those units that can compete, and a specific way it may need to play to do so. That said it might not be the exact build you want to play. IT has to be that way otherwise choice of units doesn't matter, at which point just make all the units the same with different models because choice doesn't matter.

As to not using your CP, that might be part of why you are losing the game. I generally run with 8 CP (battalion + 2 other detachments) and use all my CP by turn 3. I frequently interrupt charges, I re-roll a lot, and I also have used auto-pass on morale. It is also important to note that as codices release CP will become more important as there will be more stratagems available.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/09/14 11:41:49


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Piedmont N.C. of the usa

I play semi iyaden and because i dont want yvraine and i dont have dark reapers or hemlocks im bound to lose nearly every game i play casual or competive. My list use gaurdians as troops and wraith for my elites footslogged or in serpents and then for my heavy hitters i take 3 wraithlords or find a way to work in a wraith knight by dropping a lord and a serpent with other small tweaks.

My army is balanced with about a third t3 troops, a third teq in wraith gaurd and blades and a third in high strength high toughness models.

My stragy is to advance serpents turn one into my enemies lines in order to put a large threat on their door step that they have to deal with now not later, my lords then have time to make it to their turn 2 assaults and my gaurdians are suppose to hold objectives.

It fails hard in casual play and even harder in tournament play. Ive posted my list and the replies are that because i dont use ynarri and dark reapers with a hemlock or 2 ill never be allowed to play and have a chance of winning.

I understand the OPs idea of using detathment resrictions to make the game more fair. If i tell my opponent i want to play a 750 point battalion game they whine about how they cant becasue their troops cost to much and they cant take the other units that they want to. But when i play games that tight on force org options the games have been neck and neck. But tournaments are not forcing such tight resrictions so the list are coming in very unbalanced from each other.

Might as well just give the trophies out and go home, 12 hours of gaming knowing that you cant win is excruciating.

On the bright side since im not playing as much im getting more modeling and painting finished.

PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





vaurapung wrote:
I play semi iyaden and because i dont want yvraine and i dont have dark reapers or hemlocks im bound to lose nearly every game i play casual or competive. My list use gaurdians as troops and wraith for my elites footslogged or in serpents and then for my heavy hitters i take 3 wraithlords or find a way to work in a wraith knight by dropping a lord and a serpent with other small tweaks.

My army is balanced with about a third t3 troops, a third teq in wraith gaurd and blades and a third in high strength high toughness models.

My stragy is to advance serpents turn one into my enemies lines in order to put a large threat on their door step that they have to deal with now not later, my lords then have time to make it to their turn 2 assaults and my gaurdians are suppose to hold objectives.

It fails hard in casual play and even harder in tournament play. Ive posted my list and the replies are that because i dont use ynarri and dark reapers with a hemlock or 2 ill never be allowed to play and have a chance of winning.

I understand the OPs idea of using detathment resrictions to make the game more fair. If i tell my opponent i want to play a 750 point battalion game they whine about how they cant becasue their troops cost to much and they cant take the other units that they want to. But when i play games that tight on force org options the games have been neck and neck. But tournaments are not forcing such tight resrictions so the list are coming in very unbalanced from each other.

Might as well just give the trophies out and go home, 12 hours of gaming knowing that you cant win is excruciating.

On the bright side since im not playing as much im getting more modeling and painting finished.


It sounds like you are too fixed on a single list with little to no change in strategy or small tweaks. I mean for one your Codex isn't out so choices on super competitive things will be small, but I'm sure that playing an Iyanden theme can be competitive at least in a casual setting (isn't going to win large events.), but you cannot repeatedly do the same things with no change and expect that it will work. Especially when it comes down to things like not having specific units, try to find a unit you do own (you said you own 10k points) that can fill a role you find lacking in your army. If Ynnari is the only way to be competitive with 90% of your models, consider one of the 3 main HQs as an option for your force (convert or proxy if you want especially for casual play)

You idea of balance is also skewed, I play orks, what is my option for T3 troops? (answer I don't have one), I have maybe 1 option for TEQ, which are slow and expensive.

Also 750 points battalion is super small and restrictive, especially for armies with more expensive troops and HQ choices. You are lucky that those games have not been super unbalanced, because if someone wants to in that level they can scam the system. The same is true with any super restrictive FOC that you go to, some armies will be better suited to filling it out than others.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Piedmont N.C. of the usa

The current system is already being scammed and thats why the OP wanted to use detachment restrictions to help make play more fair. If i understand now his idea is to only play half the available points in each game. This would open up list tailoring for specific situations. Not a bad idea but could get very time consuming and abusable. Ive played one tourny where like warmahordes you bring 2 list and after seeing your opponents 2 list you decide which list you will take, you dont reveal to each other the chosen list though until deployment.

Edit was to remove the off topic portion.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/14 18:55:38


PEACE is a lie, there is only Passion,
through passion, I gain STRENGTH,
through strength, I gain POWER,
through power, I gain VICTORY through. victory, MY CHAINS are BROKEN.

 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel








Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaurapung wrote:
The current system is already being scammed and thats why the OP wanted to use detachment restrictions to help make play more fair. If i understand now his idea is to only play half the available points in each game. This would open up list tailoring for specific situations. Not a bad idea but could get very time consuming and abusable. Ive played one tourny where like warmahordes you bring 2 list and after seeing your opponents 2 list you decide which list you will take, you dont reveal to each other the chosen list though until deployment.

Edit was to remove the off topic portion.



Less restrictions makes more armies viable than the opposite. If you restrict what is allowed to say battalions it just makes whichever armies have the most points efficient troops rise to the top. That might make for fewer games where people get tabled turn 1, but will also make fewer factions and army builds that work.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/09/14 19:38:19


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Breng77 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
vaurapung wrote:
The current system is already being scammed and thats why the OP wanted to use detachment restrictions to help make play more fair. If i understand now his idea is to only play half the available points in each game. This would open up list tailoring for specific situations. Not a bad idea but could get very time consuming and abusable. Ive played one tourny where like warmahordes you bring 2 list and after seeing your opponents 2 list you decide which list you will take, you dont reveal to each other the chosen list though until deployment.

Edit was to remove the off topic portion.



Less restrictions makes more armies viable than the opposite. If you restrict what is allowed to say battalions it just makes whichever armies have the most points efficient troops rise to the top. That might make for fewer games where people get tabled turn 1, but will also make fewer factions and army builds that work.


This. Limiting detachments doesn't really do a ton to balance out the game, especially since most of the tournament winning armies out there can be built inside a single detachment; a batallion even. So if you say, "We're all using a batallion," you're not really harming the tournament winning lists much, but you are wiping out options and raising troop/HQ taxes for factions with meh troops and HQs. As a fellow craftworlds player, I don't relish the idea of having to invest in more guardians (expensive guardsmen), 20 point rangers, or 17 point dire avengers. Nor do I like the idea of having access to the heavy support slots I use to be relatively competitive restricted.

But steering back towards the main topic, I do like the idea of having side boards that you can use to tailor your list to the opponent at hand. I just don't like the specific implementation the OP has suggested. Something like the following would be much faster to execute and simpler to wrap our heads around:

*Build a 1k list
*Build two 500 point lists.
*Before each game, look at your opponent's lists.
*Secretly select one of your own 500 point lists.
*Players reveal their 500 point list selections simultaneously.
*Players play the game using the 500 point list they selected and the 1k list they selected as a 1500 point list.

So you can bring 500 points worth of anti-horde and 500 points of anti-tank as side boards, for instance, and plug in the one you think will work best against your opponent.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





I think what I would do as sideboards in this edition is as follows (for 2k points)

1.) Every player makes a base list composed of no more than 2 detachments totaling no less than 1250 points (can be more up to and including 2k points if desired) - This allows people flexibility saying 1.5k and 500 means there are 2 limits to try to fit into some lists would struggle with this like an army with 3 knights might come in at 1550 or something for it's core, and so not be able to fit into the format. Also you should be allowed to basically not have a sideboard or use multiple detachments if desired (most brigade detachments are hard to have multiple detachments with).

2.) Players are allowed to bring 2 sideboard detachments of up to 750 points. - again allows flexibility

then do the view lists, choose and reveal.

The reason I would base it around detachment is to avoid illegal lists getting played. With just having 1500 points + 500 points I can see cases where people break detachment rules, break specific faction rules etc. If they are separate detachments this never comes up because each portion is it's own detachment.

Leaving flexibility 0-750 in the sideboard allows for people having the ability to fit things best without worrying about exact caps, it also allows someone who has what they think is a good 1800 point core, to sideboard in a cheap detachment (maybe even a single unit) if desired.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: