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.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Honestly, if it was that bad, he should have just spoken to the 3 power gamers. Along with that, it actually seems these 3 aren't the only power gamers. Somebody mentioned Necron flyer spam I believe as well as wraithserpent spam.

Maybe he did, we've already seen several people, including two of the self admitted power gamers, in this thread who have issues with being told those are the rules. Speaking to the problem players is always the best opening volley but some people simply will not listen for whatever reason. Some people will simply point to the fact theirs is a legal army and still continue to roflstomp new casual players with their triple Riptide tourney list.
Some people will want to play tourney lists to learn the game but most folks would much rather learn with someone else who is learning so they at least have a fighting chance. maybe they won't hone their skills as fast, unless a vet is perhaps talking to them both, but they will have more fun doing it.

At that point the owner has only really three choices, ban the offenders, enforce FOC related rules or risk the core of his customer base in the name of letting the power gamers continue to potentially drive away customers.
It sounds like he chose the most fair option, he's not stopping anyone from playing but he's trying to bring a little balance so his newer/casual players can enjoy the game more.

 Dunklezahn wrote:
It sounds like he chose the most fair option, he's not stopping anyone from playing but he's trying to bring a little balance so his newer/casual players can enjoy the game more.

Except he's doing it in a way that unfairly penalizes a lot of other lists that aren't the problem, while doing very little to stop experienced players from crushing newbies. In that situation you have two choices: an endless series of bans on everything the "WAAC" player brings after every game until there's nothing left of their army, or somehow getting the problem players to stop being a problem. The first option might "fix" the problem by getting everyone to take their money to a different store where they don't have to keep buying new units to keep up with the owner's ridiculous comp rules, the second option deals with the problem and keeps everyone else happy.

Or there's always the third option: don't have tournaments. Don't award prizes, don't post rankings, don't give anyone any incentive to value a win beyond the experience of playing the game. If you have tournaments you will inevitably have people who try to win the tournament, and it is not possible to fix 40k to the point that a newbie can compete with an experienced player and not quit while simultaneously allowing anywhere near an interesting range of list options. But if you just have "40k game night" or whatever then there's nothing at stake and no reason to crush a newbie unless you're the kind of TFG who enjoys making people unhappy. And then you can just ban the TFGs from the store.

If you want to stop triple riptide, as that is what those 3 players bring, then ban rtiple riptide

Passively aggressively trying to hide that youre wantnig to ban them is just silly. Its like the moronic "no more than X points on rares" when really they want to say (in prior editions, at least) "No double steam tank"

Since the OP was looking for other ideas...(this one really does not work as shown.). I have been putting this idea around elsewhere.

HQ <= 25%
Troops >= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <=25%
Heavies <= 25%
Fortifications <= 10%
Lords of War <= 25%
Dedicated Transports <= 25%

The issue with the 50% rule is that it is too high, and since not all troops are balanced it favors armies with strong (or expensive troops) and armies that can do FOC swaps. Oh look I took Draigo and 10 Paladins...and now I have 50% troops because the squad is 600 points. Vs Daemons needing at 2k to run 100+ models for their troops.

Nothing is going to perfectly balance the game but requiring such an expendeture of points on one slot does not really work.

Tournament organizers are free to set any format or rules they like. If a players signs up to this tournament they agree with the terms or they can take their money elsewhere.

Under normal conditions there are a number of dominant lists, and under comp there are others. The elimination of most death stars or FMC spam could help to make the game more enjoyable for the majority of that groups player base. Balance may not have been the (primary) goal. Seems more like a business owner listening to his customers complaints.

I think it's a bit telling that the self admitted "problem players" couldn't adapt their game or bring other lists/armies.

 Antario wrote:


I think it's a bit telling that the self admitted "problem players" couldn't adapt their game or bring other lists/armies.

Why should they have to? Why can't the other players adapt their lists? These 'problem players' have said they enjoy playing their lists, so why make them change it?

Either way, the solution of 50% troops is rather poor. As has been stated many times, it doesn't fix anything and actually worsens the problem for many armies.

I can see wanting to make people change if they are always beating face on the community...that said they certainly don't have to they must just play elsewhere. Comprimise and middle ground is good for everyone.

Breng77 wrote:
I can see wanting to make people change if they are always beating face on the community...that said they certainly don't have to they must just play elsewhere. Comprimise and middle ground is good for everyone.

Yeah, but that would mean everyone else would also have to adapt their lists too. Compromise would mean that the strong lists would be toned down a little, but the weak ones would need to be toned up.

Question: If 3 players are the problem how many players does that leave still participating in the tournaments?

Five? 10? 15?

If three are ruining it for a significant majority then why not try something different?

Yeah, but that would mean everyone else would also have to adapt their lists too. Compromise would mean that the strong lists would be toned down a little, but the weak ones would need to be toned up.

Correct see my above "comp suggestion" it tones down a lot of the "strong lists" but if people build weak lists they are still going to lose. The real issue with 50% troop cap is that competitive lists will all look more or less the same.

It is also not terrible at really low points if they are playing say 750 points it is not such a big deal...but the higher you go the worse it becomes.

Either way I think requiring more than 25% is too much of a portion of an army given how armies function right now. It also fails when armies can take 6 max squads of troop units and not reach the minimum.

 Blacksails wrote:



Why should they have to? Why can't the other players adapt their lists? These 'problem players' have said they enjoy playing their lists, so why make them change it?

Because a FLGS owner has a business to run and it pays to keep your customers happy. Fair doesn't come in to it.

Yeah, I've seen your suggestion in the proposed section. Its certainly reasonable, I just haven't given much thought to how it'll affect all the armies. Then again, I've largely given up trying to 'fix' this game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Antario wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:



Why should they have to? Why can't the other players adapt their lists? These 'problem players' have said they enjoy playing their lists, so why make them change it?

Because a FLGS owner has a business to run and it pays to keep your customers happy. Fair doesn't come in to it.

In a FLGS environment, sure; money is money and certain decision are based around that which I understand. In a purely theoretical discussion, or in a group that isn't part of a store, then my point would stand.

When the OP said his base store was implementing this 50% troops rule that was for tournament play only right? If its for all games at the store that seems absurd but some of the comments in the thread seem to suggest that all play should be done according to tournament rules which are just a bunch of house rules written by players that disagee with GW.

I bring this up because I have played all sorts of rpg and minature games over the last forty odd years and seen all sorts of player complaints against the producers of games (Shadowrun, I am looking at you) but 40K seems to be the only one where a vocal minority is dictating how the game is to be played by every one in general hoby stores in contradiction to the rules as written. It just seems very weird. From the stand point of the store owners outlawing or limiting the use of certain models reduces their potential sales and would seem a no brainer.

 Blacksails wrote:
In a purely theoretical discussion, or in a group that isn't part of a store, then my point would stand.

If the goal is balance, than yes, 50% troops won't do much. It will simply favor other lists than having standard requirements. If perfect balance is desired, everyone could bring a mirror list, then the game its just down to luck and/or ability.

The main advantage of comp is that it can remove certain army styles, death stars in particular, that a lot of players find not much fun to play with or against. Off course a group can simply agree not to bring those, but then we're looking at a ban list, which may be harder to agree on.

I agree with everything but your statement on comp.

I've yet to see a proposed comp on here that actually fixed anything without breaking the game in some other way. Comp may remove *some* deathstars, but not all stars are built the same way.

And yes, a ban list would be quite difficult to come to an agreement, and especially enforce.

I'm sorry but 50% minimum on Troops is utterly stupid...

The TO may as well just say "Codex Daemons are hereby banned" because he just nuked any chance of building even a semi-decent list.
My most expensive Troop option is 10pts a dude, and even if I take every possible upgrade & max it out, that's only an additional 55pts per unit. I'd realistically need to field at least 80-100 Troops models depending on if I go Bloodletters or any of the other Gods' units.
So in order to build a list that can even be feasibly played within the Tournament Rounds time limit, I'm forced to include allies OR not use Daemons at all.

Yeah, that's a brilliant idea to basically ban entire codices "just because."


Rubbing two brain cells together would easily tell you that the right option is to;
1. Talk to the 3 or so 'problem players', let them know how/why their playstyle is becoming highly offensive to the vast majority of your community and work with them to find a solution that isn't basically dropping a nuke on the whole system!

2. Look at soft restrictions. For example, if the Daemonic Flying Circus & Necron Bakery is very problematic, then either put a restriction on the number of winged MC's/fliers each army can bring, OR, give each deployment zone a 'free' AA weapon such as an Icarus Lascannon or quad gun.
Another way to go is the suggested % caps on the HQ/Elites/Fast/Heavy, with say a 5% 'floater' that can be used to boost the spending on one of those slots.

3. Stop offering cash/free product as prizes.
Once an actual monetary value is on the line, people will turn absolutely mercenary and go in with a much meaner mentality and WaaC's attitude than compared to when you're just offering a small trophy/plaque or bragging rights.
If you want to still include say 'win free product', do it as a raffle! Your entry fee gets you a set number of tickets that you can then distribute to the prize/s that you really want. If you want to increase your odds further, then the TO can sell you extra tickets. You guys can even turn it into a fundraiser and use the raffle money to afterwards buy non-perishable for the local foodbank or perhaps a bunch of toys at Xmas for the local toy drive! (or just donate those proceeds to a worthy cause like the Kid's Hospital or Cancer research, whatever your group agrees upon...)

For a game that is about objectives and taking and holding them, and that can only be done with scoring units [troops]

requiring more troops is the answer.

Theres too many boring armies of flying super deathstar and flying heroes of death. For many people 40k has become more of "what is the least amount of troops [the models which are supposed to be taking and holding objectives] I can take to get my super chez"

Many old editions of 40k had a minimum amount of troops you had to buy, I cant recall if it was 25-50% but it was in there.

And for the people who say that "I would have to have 100 models cant cant have my glasscannon army" that is a untrue.

there are many "elite" army builds where scoring/troops are things like nobs/meganobs, aspect warriors, terminators, etc.

as has been said before, the players do not run the the tournament, the tournament organizer does.

If the players cannot manage to make a competitive list within the rules for the tourney, they are probably very poor players who rely on their build to help them overcome their poor tactical choices.

Again though older editions troops were more expensive in many cases. Also yes some armies can be elite but others cannot, not all troops are equal, those 100 daemon troop models are likely going to get stomped by things like Serpent spam or cron flyers....

There is only one way I can see to build a "competitive" Daemon list with 50% troops so it limits variety of good lists. I'm as stated above not opposed to some limits...but 50% troops is bad.

I've been in tournaments that awarded extra victory points for having a certain composition, ie 40% troops gave you one extra, 1 or fewer flyers, etc, but never flatout banning certain numbers. Even there, it was pretty one-sided for the armies with powerful troops. This just sounds like uninformed store owners trying to run the game their way without completely driving off their money makers. If it's just a local thing and they know everyone involved, this should be resolved face to face and not through coy hoop-jumping.

I think this is a shoddy idea that seriously hinders some armies far more than others.

Also, you just handed Tyranids a win in most games under 1500 pts....at least until the new Codex comes.