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.

Now the tricky stuff. The Highlander format. "There can be only one!" This means that every entry in your codex becomes a 0-1 choice, with the exception of troops.... Named special characters count as a choice of what they are. For example, if you take Mephistion, (who is a librarian) you may not take a second Librarian in that combined arms detachment.....
[Dedicated Transports] go to a 0-1, so same with Blood Angels, they could only take one Land Raider (well, of each type since they are separate entries).

Edit: the above is a quote from the TO of the tourney, laying out how the format works.


Here's what it boils down to:
Mephiston counts as a Librarian, so if you have Mephiston, you may not then take a Libby, since they are both in the "Librarian" category, regardless that they have separate entries.
A Land Raider Crusader counts as a LRC, while a LRR counts as a LRR--there is no "Land Raider" category because they have separate entries.

You Make Da Call, Dakka: is this ruling for the upcoming tourney inconsistent?

This isn't really a YMDC question; sending it to Tournaments.

If you're gonna play Bob's 40k instead of the rulebook 40k, it's hard for anything to be inconsistent.

IN 7th edition there's really no such thing as rulebook 40k, so it's hard to say something is inconsistent also.

 RobPro wrote:
If you're gonna play Bob's 40k instead of the rulebook 40k, it's hard for anything to be inconsistent.

That's like saying, "If you're using Euclid instead of Lobachevsky, it's hard for anything to be inconsistent." That doesn't make sense. Bob and GW both must have rules, and those rules must work together in the least confusing manner possible.
Things should have an internal constancy, IMO. Or at the very least, people should acknowledge when they are being inconsistent, and boldly proclaim: "Yes, I don't make sense, but it's what I want to do!"

It is just COMP... If you have a question if 'Does my MANZ battlewagon prevent me from taking a Liftdrappa Wagon' the answer is 'ask the TO'... and whatever his arbitrary decision in his arbitrary format is... so be it.

Take a bunch of Razorbacks with different weapons.

TL LC
TL HB
TL AC

They're different right?

 Hubris75 wrote:
Take a bunch of Razorbacks with different weapons.

TL LC
TL HB
TL AC

They're different right?

No. And not even remotely what he was asking.


To my mind, yes, if they're going to count different librarian entries as being all the same thing, then the different land raider entries should be treated the same.

Wow, this is a terrible comp. Not that this is what this thread is about, but wow. My poor, poor Dark Eldar, left alone and Raider-less.

On your problem, I'd agree a Land Raider is a Land Raider, and all types would be the same 0-1. The questions you should be asking is how does this effect the Dias of Destruction, Vect's Personal pimp wagon, which is a Raider at AV 13 with 3 Dark Lances but ''Is otherwise treated exactly like a Raider''. If i was to take this, would i not be able to take a normal Raider, because i already took a unit that is treated exactly like one?

Based on Mephiston counting as a Librarian, the pimpwagon should count as a Raider.

if meph = librarian then all land raider types = land raider makes sense

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 RobPro wrote:
If you're gonna play Bob's 40k instead of the rulebook 40k, it's hard for anything to be inconsistent.

That's like saying, "If you're using Euclid instead of Lobachevsky, it's hard for anything to be inconsistent." That doesn't make sense. Bob and GW both must have rules, and those rules must work together in the least confusing manner possible.

Who says they have to work together in the least confusing way possible? Isn't the best way to get your question answered by asking the TO? It seems like he/she wants special characters to count for whatever kind of guy they are a special version of for some reason, which I'm sure means Imotekh counts as a Necron Overlord and Bjorn counts as a dreadnought. Why? Who knows, it's Bob's 40k.

Things should have an internal constancy, IMO. Or at the very least, people should acknowledge when they are being inconsistent, and boldly proclaim: "Yes, I don't make sense, but it's what I want to do!"

That they should! I'm curious to hear what the person organizing the event has to say when you pose the questions.

Is this just for a one-off tournament or is this all of the time.

If the former, sounds fun!
If the latter, suck a duck.

Not sure what we're supposed to say here - it's your TO's decision and it seems pretty clear. Either attend or don't.

The whole concept seems a bit wonky to me, but then I always try (although admittedly don't always succeed) to stay consistent and to make tournaments as accessible as possible to a large number of players. That type of arbitrary restrictions, while they may sound *really cool!* to the TO, are more suited to a garage game than a tournament, at least one in which the players have to pay to play and/or are competing for prizes.

There are plenty of ways to theme tournaments, but I usually prefer to do it through the mission construction rather than arbitrary army restrictions.