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 was discussing some army design guidelines with a friend, and we came up with this for more casual games:

1 - No repeat units in any FOC slot.
2 - No more than 2 of the same troop type.

Just a WIP at this point, but I think it would allow older books to compete on a more even footing. The game is so easy to break at this point it
is just insane.

This makes marines a lot worse. 0-2 of the same troop choice really cripples alot of armies like Dark Eldar, Necrons, Marines, and Orks.

True. But all of those armies are still playable, especially in the 1500ish realm.

I do think it limits broken builds a whole lot though. It may be better to implement a restricted & banned list.

Something like:

1 - No repeat units in any FOC slot.
2 - No more than 4 of the same troop type.

RESTRICTED
Wave Serpent (max 2)
Rip Tide (max 1)
Tzeentch Herald (max 1)
Helldrake (max 1)
Farseer + Warlocks (banned)
Riptide + IC (banned)
Tervigon (max 2)
Sabre Platform (max 2)
Thudd Gun (max 1)
Artillery Carriage (max 1)
IG Blob Squad (max 1)

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head, and obviously the banned\restricted list would need to be changed over time.

I just think the meta is in a really bad shape right now, and is incredibly screwed up. GW has basically turned the game into an MTG model, without
the playtesting or a living banned\restricted list.

Begins, the shitstorm does

Stops, the abuse it does.

Makes for a better game, it will.

Tired of seeing nothing but broken cheese and codex of the month, I am.

What sucks is that all those people that spent their valuable money on these units are screwed. 6Th Ed is what it is thanks to
Gw and either we suck it up and get used to it or move on to something else like many have. I still have fun playing 40k no matter what the lists are, but that is just me.

Here's a reasonable comp rule.

Follow the rules as laid out in your codex and the rulebook.

Done.

This is. It is following the rules in the BRB, the encourages players to adopt their own rules\scenarios\etc.

I just think this simple change would make the game better. At least to me.

I have never seen it this bad before, and I have been playing since 3rd. I think it was Rick Priestly that said once the marketing department gets involved in games development, it will all turn into chit.

The game is still a blast to play, and the models are the best. But it needs work and people need to swallow the red pill in regards to what GW is blatantly doing in regards to army updates\models.

Right, so I can only ever have two fast attack choices for my Sisters.

Great, thanks a lot.

You're also limiting themed armies. Under your rules, I can't run a Canoptek list with my Necrons, for example.

"Reasonable" and "comp" do not go together. Reasonable comp is the comp established in the standard 40k rules: the FOC and point limits. Once you start banning units you don't like you are no longer being reasonable.

I would advise against this, it's far too heavy handed of an approach to reducing cheese and spam than is necessary. If you want to do something along these lines, maybe offer options that allow for themed lists and reduced spam, such as creating a variety of unit groups, similar to apocalypse formations, that the player can buy, such as 1 tactical marine squad, 1 assault squad, and 1 devastator squad being a "unit" the player can take for X number of points, and they can only take so many of these unit groups. This way you can keep the cheese to a minimum for normal play, but if someone wants to spam units or take a themed list, its possible, but the points and availability are more tightly regulated.

I think you can add a clause 3 for themed lists. Something like:

3 - Themed lists and certain other lists can operate outside of these restrictions with player consent.

Pretty simple really. The main idea is to make the game more balanced for everyone. There is no reasonable comp or FOC within the core rules. It has gotten to the point where you can pretty much take whatever you want, and is filled with combos\unit spam most players have no answer for.

Basically, GW hasn't\will not do their job. They don't care and the evidence demonstrates they write rules to sell models. That simply does not work in this type of game.

Aftermath. wrote:
3 - Themed lists and certain other lists can operate outside of these restrictions with player consent.

So what exactly is a "themed list"? Is my 5-Riptide list representing the experimental combat trials of Farsight's new battlesuit project a "themed list"? Is my flyer-heavy Elysian IG list a "themed list"? Etc. It sounds like you're making the common mistake of assuming that "themed lists" are by definition not powerful lists.

Pretty simple really. The main idea is to make the game more balanced for everyone.

Then re-write the rules from scratch. Arbitrary bans on units or combinations that are "too powerful" is just clumsy and unbalanced, and just change the "best list" to some other list that will be just as powerful relative to the remaining lists. Meanwhile people who bought armies that are collateral damage from those bans are punished for no good reason at all.

No. Your 5 Riptide list would immediately go into the chitbin, where it belongs. You can have 1 of them.
Flyer heavy Elysian list also goes straight into the chitbin as well.

Both of those lists are unfun to play against for most people. So much so, that a lot of armies simply can't play against them. So, they are not really "a list" because they don't work in the game unless you are tangling with a player like myself that knows how to shut them down.

Playing a list outside the restrictions would have to be discussed before hand. If your opponent has the models and skill to compete, he can agree to allow you to play the broken list.

And it is not going to change what the best list is. As I said, the restricted list is a living document. If somebody finds a new way to break it, it goes on the list.

Pretty simple really.

Aftermath. wrote:
And it is not going to change what the best list is. As I said, the restricted list is a living document. If somebody finds a new way to break it, it goes on the list.

Pretty simple really.

So you'll just ban this and ban that till you start banning entire factions? Because the way I read it that's what's gonna happen.

So, one T'zHerald is just as powerful as one Riptide? Both are so game breaking that taking two would bust the game?

Pretty simple really. You should wait for 2ed Chess where they have you thumb war to see who goes first.

Aftermath. wrote:
No. Your 5 Riptide list would immediately go into the chitbin, where it belongs. You can have 1 of them.
Flyer heavy Elysian list also goes straight into the chitbin as well.

I see, so this is really about enforcing your arbitrary personal beliefs about what is "fun", not about promoting themed lists (which those lists are).

And it is not going to change what the best list is. As I said, the restricted list is a living document. If somebody finds a new way to break it, it goes on the list.

IOW, "if you beat me I'll just ban whatever you used". That's a great policy.

Heres a simple rule play with a friend arrange a theme and restrictions on the fly that dont stiffle each other.
example;
'yo buddy you bringing many tanks?'
"nah just one"
'cool ill go light on anti tank then'
''how about flyers?''
'i wont if you dont'
''sounds good''
'after this can i try my all riptides build?'
''yeah cool ill see if spamming grav weapons can really beat that many MC''
'sounds like a plan'

The main book is full of enough rules, what you need is not more rules but just good old cooperation.

Do a search of these forums first.

There have been countless of these threads proposing such changes, and they're always shown to be a bad idea for a plethora of reasons, but the most important being that is legitimately solves nothing and worsens the inherent imbalance of the game.

If you ever wanted to do any sort of comp, do not under any circumstance ban units or restrict people; it only creates bitterness and resentment with people who have invested in certain units or have excellent paint jobs and enjoy those units. There are better ways to do comp, but the problem is that many 'spammy' lists many people bemoan are actually fluffier or as fluffy as random hodge podge lists.

Lets face it, Orkz would be screwed royally under your rules, but codices like Eldar and Tau who have excellent options in all the slots would become even more powerful than they already are.

So no. Its actually a pretty terrible idea with no redeeming qualities other than trying to force people into your own idea of fun or fluffy.

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Heres a simple rule play with a friend arrange a theme and restrictions on the fly that dont stiffle each other.
example;
'yo buddy you bringing many tanks?'
"nah just one"
'cool ill go light on anti tank then'
''how about flyers?''
'i wont if you dont'
''sounds good''
'after this can i try my all riptides build?'
''yeah cool ill see if spamming grav weapons can really beat that many MC''
'sounds like a plan'

The main book is full of enough rules, what you need is not more rules but just good old cooperation.

This. The game is not particularly well balanced. All codexes are not created equal, and within those books, there are units more powerful then others. What you need is not more rules, but a handshake/gentleman's agreement. Not every game needs to use hyper competitive units, or be the clash of tournament caliber lists. Any banned/restricted list you make is not going to cover everything, and any blanket statement is not going to affect everyone the same way. It will just cripple some things and shift the power elsewhere. Just trust everyone to keep themselves in check. If this is the kind of play your group wants, you should find a new balance level. If someone's idea of balance is not the same as others, sit down and talk about it.

Being reasonable and having a gentleman's agreement has always been my policy. But it doesn't always work.
I will give you a real life example.

I was playing Dark Eldar last edition a few months after the Grey Knight codex dropped. I was playing in a league with the same
general TAC list, and the local Grey Knight TFG was in the league as well. We were going to play each other next week, and he told me
he had never played Dark Eldar before. He was being friendly and said he wanted some tactics, but said he would not tailor his list for next weeks game. We had a gentleman's
agreement, which was witnessed by another player.

Next week I show up for the game, and guess what? He has 5 Psyrifleman dreads in his list. He had previously not owned any prior to this game, and
had been using mainly Dreadknights.

I refused to play him, packed my chit up and went home.

Here's the only way you should do comp:

You build and paint two separate armies.
You ask to play against me with your amies.
I choose the one I want to play with.

Aftermath. wrote:
Being reasonable and having a gentleman's agreement has always been my policy. But it doesn't always work.
I will give you a real life example.

I was playing Dark Eldar last edition a few months after the Grey Knight codex dropped. I was playing in a league with the same
general TAC list, and the local Grey Knight TFG was in the league as well. We were going to play each other next week, and he told me
he had never played Dark Eldar before. He was being friendly and said he wanted some tactics, but said he would not tailor his list for next weeks game. We had a gentleman's
agreement, which was witnessed by another player.

Next week I show up for the game, and guess what? He has 5 Psyrifleman dreads in his list. He had previously not owned any prior to this game, and
had been using mainly Dreadknights.

I refused to play him, packed my chit up and went home.

In 5th edition Psyflemen were the norm, that doesn't sound like a tailored choice.

So how is this reasonable?

All I've seen for defending this point is that "it helps me win" but it is wrapped up in this false pretense of balance.

Aftermath. wrote:
I was discussing some army design guidelines with a friend, and we came up with this for more casual games:

1 - No repeat units in any FOC slot.
2 - No more than 2 of the same troop type.

Just a WIP at this point, but I think it would allow older books to compete on a more even footing. The game is so easy to break at this point it
is just insane.

I only have two troop types... unless its supposed to force my HQ choices as well..

not fair IMO

 curran12 wrote:
So how is this reasonable?

All I've seen for defending this point is that "it helps me win" but it is wrapped up in this false pretense of balance.

I don't have a problem winning. This is just a brainstorm on how to make the game more balanced for everyone.

And the restricted list would be feedback from the community. Not my personal choices. I believe the draft list I presented
above largely reflects the pulse of the community, but it can certainly be modified.

And BTW - I can run several of the most broken builds, so I personally gain nothing from these suggestions. In fact, it forces
me to think out of the box more.

The ONLY way to create balance is to adjust the core rules and the codices to become more balanced internally and externally. Banning units or imposing restrictions that affect each army differently creates more imbalance.

If you want a gentleman's agreement, do just that. Talk with your opponent about the general level of the build you want to play. Then build your lists blindly and play.

But imposing restrictions or banning units is bad on multiple levels for everyone, as has been explained at length here.

This would kill off most DE list completely, and you would struggle to actualyl make a viable army without just a rondom assortment of models.

DE rely heavily on their HS to do a lot of leg work for them. Also most De armys are fairly mobile, doing this would really make it disjoinet and not a honed army.

If you want to run comp - rather than try and come up with a restriction on FOC - you either just ban outright what you were trying to do in the first place and be honest about your reasons, or you go through and apply restiction on each army that is specfic to them.

 Blacksails wrote:
The ONLY way to create balance is to adjust the core rules and the codices to become more balanced internally and externally. Banning units or imposing restrictions that affect each army differently creates more imbalance.

QFT. If I would run a tournament in my gaming club with these restrictions then all I would see were the following.
- Tau Quasi Suit Spam (Ethereal, Batcommander, Bodyguards, Crisis Squad, 2 FW squads, 2 Kroot squads, Pathfinders Team, Marker Drones Squad, Missilesides and maybe a Sky Ray or Hammerhead)
- Chaos Daemons Flying Circus (Bloodthirster, Faty, 2 Plaguebeares, 2 Daemonettes, HS Prince, CSM Ally Prince, Cultists, Baledrake)
- Combined White Scars/Iron Hands Biker Spam (Khan, Biker Libby, Biker Command Squad, 2 maxed-out Biker Squads, Attack Bike Squad, TFCs, Allied Godmode Chapter Master, Allied Biker Command Squad, Allied maxed-out Biker Squad, Allied Attack Bike Squad, maybe an Allied Stalker/Hunter)
And absolutely nothing else because these lists could beat the crap out of everyone and everything thankfully to the restrictions.

Yeah, exactly what AtoMaki said.

The already powerful/recently updated dexes get an even bigger headstart over the generally underwhelming 5th or 4th ed codices.

There's no right way to do comp, to be honest, and all this discussion does is show how poorly balanced 40k is.

There are ways of adjusting comp without coming up with themed armies, or limiting foc selections.

Idea 1 make missions that discourage a certain style of play. Ie don't play mostly kill points missions as they favor things wihich spam certain high cost units

Idea 2 mission special rules. Play a tourney format with multiple games, maybe some.have special rules.which limit flyer effectiveness like strong winds, turbulence etc

Idea 3 points requirements, must spend 50% of army minimum on troops.foc

Idea 4 troops unlock fox selections. For every 2 troops units you can take 1 Hvy, 1 FA, 1 Elite, and 1 hq. You may not take more FOC slots than your armies detachment rules allow. Same for allied detachment.