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.

Hey, so I just got back into Warhammer 40k about 2 years ago. The last time I was playing was in 3rd edition. I still can't get over how horrible the game balance has become. I can still remember that the big controversy at the time (in 3rd edition) was the eldar Wraith Lord! It was the same points as a flimsy dreadnaught but had 3 wounds and toughness 8. The gamers cried foul, but Games Workshop said that the reason was because Strength 4 weapons could hurt a toughness 7 creature but could not hurt an armor 12 dread. So making the Wraithlord toughness 8 was equal to an armor 12 (and if I remember correctly, rolls of 4+ destroyed all vehicles on the pen chart). Anyways, this was the first time I remember thinking to myself "who the f*#% do they have writing these rules". Or "do they even play test this stuff before writing it". Overall however 3rd edition was pretty good for balance and game design. High-toughness creatures had a low save, fast units were very expensive, invulnerable saves were hard to come by and very expensive to give your characters, and regular space marines were actually pretty damn good.

Now flash-forward to about a year ago when I played my brothers Tau for the first time! Where do I start? Regular infantry carrying strength 5 "heavy bolter-esque" shots firing into my toughness 3 army. Hitting on a 2+ from marker lights and wounding on a 2+. A giant toughness 6 multi-wound behemoth wearing essentially terminator armor and an invulnerable save that can be improved to 3+ (and damn fast too with the jetpack rule). But it's not just the Tau that are broken, don't get me wrong. It's everything that goes against the rock-paper-scissor elements that you find in all the great game designs. If you're fast you should be weak, if you're really big you should have a weakness, and if you have no weakness you should be a hell of a lot of points!

After watching plenty of competitive games over youtube and such, you can really see how broken the game has become. All of the competitive lists are usually Eldar or Tau and very similar in cheese. But this leads me into the second part of my thread which is, why don't people make restrictions and rule changes for competitive play? This could really help improve the game and bring infantry back. Games like Magic the Gathering do this with some of their formats. They will ban some cards and make others restricted to 1 per deck. I think all of the codex's would need to be nerfed and some more than others of course.

Here is an example of a tournament format and rules restrictions for both my brothers Tau and my Astral Militarum:

Bobby's Tournament Rules!

- No first blood, or missions that use kill points. (A player should not be restricted from playing with crappy but cheap units because they are easy to kill. And a player should not take a penalty for outnumbering their opponent!)

- 1500 points! This is the best in my opinion because armies that swarm such as Tyranids and Orks can actually take advantage of their numbers on a 6x4 board! 1850 or higher leaves way too many units for space marine players etc. 6 point models can actually be put to use.

- No special characters allowed! (In 3rd edition you actually had to get permission from your opponent!)

Astral Militarum:
-Tank commanders are banned.
-Non-Sentinel vehicle squads are banned. 1 Leman russ is 1 Heavy support choice! You actually have to plan your army and have restrictions :-O

Tau:
- Riptides count as 2 heavy support slots. This better reflects their role on the battlefield and restricts them to 1 per army. And better balances them being overpowered by taking up 2 slots in heavy.
- Units can only use 1 marker light per unit per turn. -1 to cover save or +1 to ballistic skill but not both and they can't stack. This would actually be somewhat balanced and their would be no point in spamming your army with too many marker lights.

So yeah, you get the idea. These were just some quick suggestions off the top of my head, but you would do this for all the books. Every codex would have restrictions for tournament play and armies like Imperial Knights would probably just be banned as well as supper heavy's etc.

I just don't understand why these big competitive tourney's try to use the GW rules when they are just no good for balanced play. Thoughts?

Tank commanders or Pask dont make Guard broken.

Not a fan of your Tournament alterations myself. I like what the bigger GTs have done (for the most part) to make some sense of the current state of the game

In the broader sense why is it that people hold grudges against armies long after they are OP.

I don't find Tau to be abusive or overly powerful since their battle brother/MC/IC combos were removed.

I noticed the same behavior with people and GK long after their 5th edition heyday.

These are terrible rules and fix "problems" that aren't really problems. Perhaps you should spend more time playing (or at least reading about) the modern game before you start trying to change everything?

It seems you're railing against the competitive scene because it's not the way it used to be. Competitive 40k and friendly 40k games are two different animals. Sure some units are clearly flat out better than others, but most competitive lists have a chance at winning games regardless of what the other list is and depending on the player even weaker lists have a chance.

If I bring a competitive Chaos list, I'll do fairly well. By the same token, the time I brought my "fun" Chaos list I made it to the last table, only to be defeated in two turns by a Tau player without killing a single model (again, this was due to my list choice then the OPness of the Tau army).

So no, I don't believe making changes like this will be very good for the competitive scene. I like tournaments to be all out brawl. I don't like the idea of handicapping certain armies because the units they can field are good.

It doesn't seem like you've played much competitively if off the top of your head you come up with Astra Millitarum Tank Commanders instead of something that is actually very good... like Wave Serpents.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tank commanders or Pask dont make Guard broken.

Yeah I don't think it's broken either. But I'm just thinking of ways that can bring infantry back in the game. Rather than lists that are bare bones infantry to leave room for all the nasty stuff. There doesn't seem to be any real restriction on your force organization anymore.

bob82ca wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tank commanders or Pask dont make Guard broken.

Yeah I don't think it's broken either. But I'm just thinking of ways that can bring infantry back in the game. Rather than lists that are bare bones infantry to leave room for all the nasty stuff. There doesn't seem to be any real restriction on your force organization anymore.

What makes an infantry focused ruleset any more competitive, fun, or viable than the current one? Why does infantry have to play such an important role? What's wrong with low troops, high nasty stuff?

Pask and pals are too expensive to spammed. A tank commander HQ is 290 or so points minimum. You could introduce percentage restrictions a la fantasy.

 Ignatius wrote:

bob82ca wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Tank commanders or Pask dont make Guard broken.

Yeah I don't think it's broken either. But I'm just thinking of ways that can bring infantry back in the game. Rather than lists that are bare bones infantry to leave room for all the nasty stuff. There doesn't seem to be any real restriction on your force organization anymore.

What makes an infantry focused ruleset any more competitive, fun, or viable than the current one? Why does infantry have to play such an important role? What's wrong with low troops, high nasty stuff?

Well I guess it's just opinion based. It's just my opinion on the game. I've played both editions and I like a lot of the new stuff like snap firing and weapons rules. But in my opinion the game was more balanced and representative of the universe in 3rd edition. Why do I think infantry based would be better? For one thing, it would be a war just like the front of the box. Large units would be more scarce on the battlefield which would better illustrate their rarity and power. That's what force organization is supposed to do. But instead you just see people playing 2 squads of minimum troops. And the rest of their army are units that are supposed to be rare and special but instead just seen as "the meta".

bob82ca wrote:
Anyways, this was the first time I remember thinking to myself "who the f*#% do they have writing these rules". Or "do they even play test this stuff before writing it"...

So yeah, you get the idea. These were just some quick suggestions off the top of my head, but you would do this for all the books. Every codex would have restrictions for tournament play and armies like Imperial Knights would probably just be banned as well as supper heavy's etc...

I just don't understand why these big competitive tourney's try to use the GW rules when they are just no good for balanced play. Thoughts?

Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet Pot.

Someone complaining that GW doesn't do any play testing yet they don't do any play testing themselves and say they have the correct way of doing it.

You want to be taken seriously but yet act just like the people you are complaining about.

OK. Here are some restrictions I can think of that makes sense, though not sure if any tournament will implement. All of these are for 1500 points game:

- Bring your list before the game to avoid tailoring.

- No units apart from troops can be brought more than three times, not withstanding the equipment.

- No more than 2 Flyers/FMC.

- No more than 2 Wave Serpents. These guys are special.

- Dreadknights and Wraithknights take up 2 slots of Heavy Support. Riptide takes 2 for Elite.

- Cannot bring formation or play Unbound unless the opponent consent.

- Battle Brothers cannot use each other's transport.

- FMC cannot Jink on the ground, regardless Grounded or not.

- Daemon Prince cannot have Relic from Chaos Space Marines Codex.

- Invisibility only reduces BS to 1 and forces enemies to hit on 6s in melee. Blast and Template will fire as normal.

- 2 summoning per turn at maximum.

- 20 Warp charges cap (not counting the D6, which can bring up to 26).

- Snap firing Tesla does not triple on hit.

Anyone has any thought on this?

Davor wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
Anyways, this was the first time I remember thinking to myself "who the f*#% do they have writing these rules". Or "do they even play test this stuff before writing it"...

So yeah, you get the idea. These were just some quick suggestions off the top of my head, but you would do this for all the books. Every codex would have restrictions for tournament play and armies like Imperial Knights would probably just be banned as well as supper heavy's etc...

I just don't understand why these big competitive tourney's try to use the GW rules when they are just no good for balanced play. Thoughts?

Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet Pot.

Someone complaining that GW doesn't do any play testing yet they don't do any play testing themselves and say they have the correct way of doing it.

You want to be taken seriously but yet act just like the people you are complaining about.

Why am I even writing in this forum lol. You guys are all right and there is nothing wrong with current game. It's perfect the way it is. I was just trying to open discussion on ways to improve the competitive diversity and I'm getting flamed. But it's ok because I realize now that the game is perfect the way it is. What was I thinking.

I mean Tau and Eldar are not overpowered at all. I mean 90% of the competitive armies are Tau and Eldar because they happen to like the army. And they are always in the top 5 because of the superior tactics of the player. Right? And I know what you're going to say...."there will always be a stronger army". But this is a game of rolling dice with good luck and bad luck, but those lists ignore all of that and win every time. That's a sure fire sign of imbalance.

Years ago there used to be a GW in every shopping centre and now they are dropping like flies. There miniatures are much better then they used to be, but business is bad so what has changed? I know I'm not the only one who thinks the game has got worse over the years. But unfortunately the 5 guys that are keeping GW in business happen to be in this forum. And they're flaming the $#!t out of me for having some ideas.

I'm ok with you disagreeing with me, but you don't have to be a dik about it.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

bibotot wrote:
OK. Here are some restrictions I can think of that makes sense, though not sure if any tournament will implement. All of these are for 1500 points game:

- Bring your list before the game to avoid tailoring.

- No units apart from troops can be brought more than three times, not withstanding the equipment.

- No more than 2 Flyers/FMC.

- No more than 2 Wave Serpents. These guys are special.

- Dreadknights and Wraithknights take up 2 slots of Heavy Support. Riptide takes 2 for Elite.

- Cannot bring formation or play Unbound unless the opponent consent.

- Battle Brothers cannot use each other's transport.

- FMC cannot Jink on the ground, regardless Grounded or not.

- Daemon Prince cannot have Relic from Chaos Space Marines Codex.

- Invisibility only reduces BS to 1 and forces enemies to hit on 6s in melee. Blast and Template will fire as normal.

- 2 summoning per turn at maximum.

- 20 Warp charges cap (not counting the D6, which can bring up to 26).

- Snap firing Tesla does not triple on hit.

Anyone has any thought on this?

Here we go! A constructive post from someone with an open mind! Yes this is exactly what I'm talking about!

bibotot wrote:
OK. Here are some restrictions I can think of that makes sense, though not sure if any tournament will implement. All of these are for 1500 points game:

- Bring your list before the game to avoid tailoring.

This is already a requirement at Tournaments.

- No units apart from troops can be brought more than three times, not withstanding the equipment.

So you don't want one trick ponies? If someone were to max out on units of one particular type, then they would be highly susceptible to hard counters.

- No more than 2 Flyers/FMC.

You probably have one particular build in mind here. What makes you want this restriction?

- No more than 2 Wave Serpents. These guys are special.

So Eldar armies aren't allowed to bring transports now? (okay sure falcons work, but only for units of 6 or less). This restriction suddenly reverses it, now Eldar are at an unfair disadvantage in that they aren't allowed troop transports.

- Dreadknights and Wraithknights take up 2 slots of Heavy Support. Riptide takes 2 for Elite.

Of all your suggestions, this is the one that's closest to being okay. But, if a player brings three of these units, they hamfist themselves from creating real, competitive, and adaptable armies. Believe it or not, many tourny lists can handle triple Riptide lists. The Riptide and Wraithknight get their power from supporting other units. On their own, they aren't as great as you'd believe.

- Cannot bring formation or play Unbound unless the opponent consent.
You don't need your opponents consent in a Tournament. If the TO authorizes it, you're golden. No formations is already implemented in many tournaments, but at the same time, they sometimes are the only thing making a certain unit viable at all. Helbrutes are terrible by themselves, their 3 formations make them at least somewhat viable.

- Battle Brothers cannot use each other's transport.

Again, what specific example makes you want to eliminate this?

- FMC cannot Jink on the ground, regardless Grounded or not.

Why?

- Daemon Prince cannot have Relic from Chaos Space Marines Codex.

The fact that you propose any nerfs to the Chaos Marine Codex is both laughable and means you haven't played against them. You want to take away one of the few viable combinations in the hilariously weak codex (I should know, I play them)

- Invisibility only reduces BS to 1 and forces enemies to hit on 6s in melee. Blast and Template will fire as normal.

If this change occured, Tau markerlights and things that improve BS would make invisibility less useful against them. The power is good, no doubt about it. But it's supposed to be like that. Don't just nerf things because they are good.

- 2 summoning per turn at maximum.

Have you ever played against a Daemonfactory list? On paper it's great, but in my experience they aren't as cracked up as people would lead you to believe.

- 20 Warp charges cap (not counting the D6, which can bring up to 26).

Same as above. Armies that have large numbers of warp charges are build around the psychic phase. Generally if an army is getting 20+ warp charges they are lacking somewhere else. The psychic phase is where they get their power. Why nerf them? While we are at it, let's cap it to 3 units per shooting phase can shoot. Or 2 units can declare charges. It doesn't make sense.

- Snap firing Tesla does not triple on hit.

Why not? What's wrong with this?

Anyone has any thought on this?

It just seems that your suggestions are based around making all units and armies exactly the same- with just different models. And to me- that's super boring and would further shrink the variability found in tournament armies even further.

I do not think you understand the competitive meta or the meta you play in does not represent a large majority.

 Ignatius wrote:

bibotot wrote:
OK. Here are some restrictions I can think of that makes sense, though not sure if any tournament will implement. All of these are for 1500 points game:

- Bring your list before the game to avoid tailoring.

This is already a requirement at Tournaments.

- No units apart from troops can be brought more than three times, not withstanding the equipment.

So you don't want one trick ponies? If someone were to max out on units of one particular type, then they would be highly susceptible to hard counters.

- No more than 2 Flyers/FMC.

You probably have one particular build in mind here. What makes you want this restriction?

- No more than 2 Wave Serpents. These guys are special.

So Eldar armies aren't allowed to bring transports now? (okay sure falcons work, but only for units of 6 or less). This restriction suddenly reverses it, now Eldar are at an unfair disadvantage in that they aren't allowed troop transports.

- Dreadknights and Wraithknights take up 2 slots of Heavy Support. Riptide takes 2 for Elite.

Of all your suggestions, this is the one that's closest to being okay. But, if a player brings three of these units, they hamfist themselves from creating real, competitive, and adaptable armies. Believe it or not, many tourny lists can handle triple Riptide lists. The Riptide and Wraithknight get their power from supporting other units. On their own, they aren't as great as you'd believe.

- Cannot bring formation or play Unbound unless the opponent consent.
You don't need your opponents consent in a Tournament. If the TO authorizes it, you're golden. No formations is already implemented in many tournaments, but at the same time, they sometimes are the only thing making a certain unit viable at all. Helbrutes are terrible by themselves, their 3 formations make them at least somewhat viable.

- Battle Brothers cannot use each other's transport.

Again, what specific example makes you want to eliminate this?

- FMC cannot Jink on the ground, regardless Grounded or not.

Why?

- Daemon Prince cannot have Relic from Chaos Space Marines Codex.

The fact that you propose any nerfs to the Chaos Marine Codex is both laughable and means you haven't played against them. You want to take away one of the few viable combinations in the hilariously weak codex (I should know, I play them)

- Invisibility only reduces BS to 1 and forces enemies to hit on 6s in melee. Blast and Template will fire as normal.

If this change occured, Tau markerlights and things that improve BS would make invisibility less useful against them. The power is good, no doubt about it. But it's supposed to be like that. Don't just nerf things because they are good.

- 2 summoning per turn at maximum.

Have you ever played against a Daemonfactory list? On paper it's great, but in my experience they aren't as cracked up as people would lead you to believe.

- 20 Warp charges cap (not counting the D6, which can bring up to 26).

Same as above. Armies that have large numbers of warp charges are build around the psychic phase. Generally if an army is getting 20+ warp charges they are lacking somewhere else. The psychic phase is where they get their power. Why nerf them? While we are at it, let's cap it to 3 units per shooting phase can shoot. Or 2 units can declare charges. It doesn't make sense.

- Snap firing Tesla does not triple on hit.

Why not? What's wrong with this?

Anyone has any thought on this?

It just seems that your suggestions are based around making all units and armies exactly the same- with just different models. And to me- that's super boring and would further shrink the variability found in tournament armies even further.

These are not for tournaments. Just for local gaming leagues or mini tournament,

@ Ignatius

Oh please...yes falcons work fine, you know why? because no one puts more than 5 models in a Wave Serpent anyway! But I get your point so lets make it, units numbering less than 6 have the falcon as a choice, units of 10 can take a Wave serpent. Fact is this creates a necessary "tax" on the wave serpent to bring in line with its effectiveness.

bob82ca wrote:

Davor wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
Anyways, this was the first time I remember thinking to myself "who the f*#% do they have writing these rules". Or "do they even play test this stuff before writing it"...

So yeah, you get the idea. These were just some quick suggestions off the top of my head, but you would do this for all the books. Every codex would have restrictions for tournament play and armies like Imperial Knights would probably just be banned as well as supper heavy's etc...

I just don't understand why these big competitive tourney's try to use the GW rules when they are just no good for balanced play. Thoughts?

Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet Pot.

Someone complaining that GW doesn't do any play testing yet they don't do any play testing themselves and say they have the correct way of doing it.

You want to be taken seriously but yet act just like the people you are complaining about.

Why am I even writing in this forum lol.

You even read what I said? You are complaining that GW does NO TESTING, yet you do not TESTING either and say yours is the better way. All you are doing is what you claim GW is doing. I didn't say you were right or wrong just a hypocrite. All you look like is you are whining and the only way to fix 40K is doing EXACTLY what you claim GW is doing, Theoryhammering everything and no testing at all.

So what makes your way the correct way and GW way the wrong way? You are doing the exact thing with no testing, but yet you claim proof yours is the better idea.

So you all think wh40k is perfectly balanced?

Davor wrote:

bob82ca wrote:

Davor wrote:

bob82ca wrote:
Anyways, this was the first time I remember thinking to myself "who the f*#% do they have writing these rules". Or "do they even play test this stuff before writing it"...

So yeah, you get the idea. These were just some quick suggestions off the top of my head, but you would do this for all the books. Every codex would have restrictions for tournament play and armies like Imperial Knights would probably just be banned as well as supper heavy's etc...

I just don't understand why these big competitive tourney's try to use the GW rules when they are just no good for balanced play. Thoughts?

Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet Pot.

Someone complaining that GW doesn't do any play testing yet they don't do any play testing themselves and say they have the correct way of doing it.

You want to be taken seriously but yet act just like the people you are complaining about.

Why am I even writing in this forum lol.

You even read what I said? You are complaining that GW does NO TESTING, yet you do not TESTING either and say yours is the better way. All you are doing is what you claim GW is doing. I didn't say you were right or wrong just a hypocrite. All you look like is you are whining and the only way to fix 40K is doing EXACTLY what you claim GW is doing, Theoryhammering everything and no testing at all.

So what makes your way the correct way and GW way the wrong way? You are doing the exact thing with no testing, but yet you claim proof yours is the better idea.

Yes but dude I never claimed that my way is the right way! So cool your gak. My point was that they actually publish the rules in books that people buy! I understand the point you are trying to make ......I ...get ...it.

It's just an open discussion and that was my example. Do you think that the game is balanced the way it is? Serious question no troll. And if not, what restrictions would you make to balance the game?

Here are the only changes I would make.

-Maximum one Riptide/Dreadknight/Wraithknight per 600 points.

-All 2+ invulnerables, cover saves, or armor saves are rerolled as 4+s.

-Invisibility cannot target the unit of the Psyker who is casting it.

-No Unbound, ever.

-No more than 3 detachments.

-Transcendent C'Tan are now 650 points base.

-Serpent Shield range is now 24".

-Markerlights reduce Cover Save by 1 per markerlight expended.

bob82ca wrote:

Why am I even writing in this forum lol.

It's fun to troll is my guess.

Verviedi, why no Unbound?

Yes a player can make a broken army list using Unbound, but is the following (completely legal for some tournaments) any less broken?

"So Eldar armies aren't allowed to bring transports now? (okay sure falcons work, but only for units of 6 or less). This restriction suddenly reverses it, now Eldar are at an unfair disadvantage in that they aren't allowed troop transports. "

Don't care if the Eldar suddenly have a "disadvantage" myself. I didn't write the WS. Eldar have had advantages long enough. Maybe its time for a "disadvantage".

quickfuze wrote:@ Ignatius

Oh please...yes falcons work fine, you know why? because no one puts more than 5 models in a Wave Serpent anyway! But I get your point so lets make it, units numbering less than 6 have the falcon as a choice, units of 10 can take a Wave serpent. Fact is this creates a necessary "tax" on the wave serpent to bring in line with its effectiveness.

I suppose this is more fair than a flat "you can't take more than X of a certain unit". Though something about it still seems a little unnatural. I can't articulate why it seems like it to me, so I won't try. But your suggestion I think would solve problems.

bibotot wrote:These are not for tournaments. Just for local gaming leagues or mini tournament,

Okay fair enough. The topic was about competitive play, so I just assumed you meant tournament. I apologize.

Filch wrote:So you all think wh40k is perfectly balanced?

Nope. But I don't believe that me meddling with it will make it any better.

Martel732 wrote:"So Eldar armies aren't allowed to bring transports now? (okay sure falcons work, but only for units of 6 or less). This restriction suddenly reverses it, now Eldar are at an unfair disadvantage in that they aren't allowed troop transports. "

Don't care if the Eldar suddenly have a "disadvantage" myself. I didn't write the WS. Eldar have had advantages long enough. Maybe its time for a "disadvantage".

This sounds more like jealousy than a real complaint. I didn't write the Wave Serpent either but there are better ways of fixing it than just capping their number.

It will take more thana few tweeks to fix 40k.

While I play for fun so it doesn't affect me, from topics and battle reports where I see min squads in serpents, I have to say having that necessary tax seems fair.. this would create that extra though of damn... Do I really wanna waste more points on stuff I don't need or want to get what I do? As deldar could do with a few competetive wise. Just my opinion

How about we all just play C-lo, and use our minis as chips?

Nerfs are like pulling on the proverbial thread. Why unravel the game? There's a counter for everything, it's just about being prepared.

I have been trying to fight or so should I say, lose to ultimate cheese list for the past 6 years. You either join them and have some gouda cheese too and maybe turn them into swiss cheese or you quit the game. I do not have the money to continue this exorbitant "hobby."

You have to accept that this is a game built to make the creators money. They make money by getting you to buy a model. They will continue to write broken rules for new models. I really think the wave serpent 60" shield blast range was a typo and they intended 6". They have had so many opportunities to correct that mistake but they choose not to because it sells the wave serpent model for them. This game will never be balance as long as $ is in the equation.

Don't some warmachine tournaments allow players to bring two lists? That would help fix some of the issues, as TAC lists are getting harder and harder to make.

I read the OPs post less as a specific set of rules for tournaments and more as an attempt to start a discussion around a common set of alterations to stock 40k rules that don't work well for tournaments.

The big issue tournaments need to address is the fact it's very hard to make TAC lists with some Codexes. Part of the reason I think tournaments are more illegitimate than ever is the fact Eldar are always dominating the scene.

Tournaments, at least in my opinion, should be more about the best player and less about the most optimized net list. The use of objective cards could have a big impact on this aspect of the game, and specific tournaments could use their own decks to make it more exciting.

I don't really play in things called tournaments, but have participated in various events over the years that other people called tournaments. The most enjoyable ones have been progressives, where moving on from stage to stage meant your army got more powerful in some way (i.e. better rules for certain units, access to non-Codex wargear, increased points, etc).

This is another thing I would like to see. As I understand it, a lot of multi-day tournaments have issues with players leaving after the first day. This could be a way to keep people hanging around.