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.

Just a fun little game mode that I thought might be fun, and I apologize if other 'draft picking/ restricting' suggestions have already been put forward.

Just as a foreword, this is not meant as a replacement or as a method of balancing traditional 40k but more of a fun game type that can be played from time to time and assumes that the game is organised ahead of time.

- Prior to the game both players list a number of units they have the ability to use (originally this was meant codex listing, but considering some codexes have more units than others and players may have limited selections of models), the most important thing is that both lists have an equal amount of selections.

- Players then take it in turns to ban x amount of units that may not be used for list creation (in the unlikely event that both players are using the same faction(s) then these restrictions apply to both players), the only restriction is that at least one valid HQ choice and two valid troops slot are left available so that at least a valid CAD can be used if required.


Notes:

- I would suggest that about 15-20% of the submitted codex selections are subject to banning

- I would also suggest this was played in a 'Highlander' setting meaning that codex selections may not be duplicated (meaning that you shouldn't be able to spam power units if they are left available) however depending on available miniatures this restriction is optional.

- For Maelstrom games] - Before players set objectives they choose a deck of 15 tactical objectives to use during the game as their objectives (I believe this is an interesting dynamic as your opponent gets to place restrictions to your list and on the flip side you have to very carefully choose a limited selection of tactical objectives tailored around your list)

NOTES
- This supports and potentially encourages multiple source lists (i.e allies)

- If the units contained are not banned, you may use formations

Sounds horrible. Why even play when your options are gone? Just play chess at that point.

SJ

The problem is with armies like Nids or Grey Knights where 1 or 2 bans just removes practically all viable builds. Armies like Eldar for example have so many viable builds and competitive units that it wouldn't have nearly the same effect if your trying to power game the system. Also not everyone has the variety of models on hand to handle having unit options banned.

As to your point about multiple sources such as allies, it doesn't really work for armies who can't easily take allies such as Tyranids.

Sounds like a variant of "if you promise not to bring your Wraithknight, I promise not to bring my Stormsurge."

If you have regular opponents, restricting them from bringing units that you regularly struggle against and/or seem so ingrained in that player's list building you're not sure what he'd do without that unit are a great way to add variety to your games. It relies on both players having sufficiently sized collections to be able to cope with the lost units.

I'd suggest Troops choices being exempt - most armies have enough HQ options that forcing a new HQ can be interesting, but Troops or basic transports are pretty limited and intrinsic. I'd class Drop Pods as an exception to this exception though

The maelstrom idea is interesting, though I'd make it 20 rather than 15 - I can plow through that many in a 7 turn game simply by being agressive with ditching difficult ones and being lucky with low-hanging fruit.