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.

Guys , I`ve run many past 40K tourneys and stopped when 7th got just too silly. So far I`m pretty happy with 8th. However looking at the ATC lists .... For the next event I run I`m thinking of a 2000 point single detachment which must be a battalion. Using the ITC missions and format. I have a tourney this weekend I`m playing in and looking back at my own list... I`m thinking this would be a good way to keep things from getting silly again.

I think one batallion is a little too overboard on restrictions. Off the top of my head, this locks out the following valid non-cheese armies:

-Farsight enclaves
-Deathwing and Ravenwing
-Knights (Have issues but are a valid stand alone army)
-Jetbike eldar (again borderline)

My suggestion: Ban the flyer wing, and then restrict players to 1 detatchment of each type, with say 2 total. Also maybe ban supreme command, but personally I'd leave it in. This prevents spam while still allowing most interesting fluffy armies

Ban the Flyer Wing, limit Super Heavies to 1 per army, ban any single model with a power level over 31. This doesn't fix IG try hards but keeps everyone else at a pretty even level.

The ITC missions themselves (and their interpretations for multi level buildings) also help limit the super lists. If you take all flyers its going to be hard to score any mission control points when an army with models sits on an objective, or gets into a building that the flyer can't target with shooting(the first floor of multi level buildings according to their guidelines). Some folks have talked about banning certain power levels as mentioned above, or models with more than 30 wounds, but I feel thats less necessary.

Banning detachments hurts regular armies more than the occasional spamtastic list. I know for Orks I almost always need 3 detachments, a battallion, and usually a spearhead and patrol or Vanguard. With the randomness of orky models I burn through CP so fast, so limiting detachments just penalizes normal lists more than it does to help prevent power lists. at the local level you usually don't get people with 4 stormravens and 400 conscripts, etc. the power lists at local levels are usually girly man and his razorfriends, several leviathans, ynnari, etc. so without banning everything individually(which just creates vaccums for other units to fall into) you are still going to have some lists that are just better than others in terms of cost to benefit efficiency.

I think from a design standpoint abandoning obj secured was wrong.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately. For starters, I think it's a good idea. I've been long advocating playing around with the FoC as a means of limiting power level.

So currently, as with the FoC I know from 3rd and HH, it is so open that the restrictions it imposes are rather artificial. Sure, at best there are minimum choices, but at worst you can tailor your list construction to make them non-existent. The scale of this problem is worse as the points increase. Who cares about your two compulsory 5 man scout units when you've got your three 10 man terminator units afterwards? The question then becomes why have them at all? Just set a point level and go to town.

Speaking to Thepolishteer's point, restrictions define a format. Certain things are simply unattainable given a certain set of parameters. Some people care about this more than others. At the end of the day, if the format being crafted is fun but narrow, then isn't that better than a wider format that's less fun? Probably? But GW's systems are generally defined by the options available compared to other game systems, and I suspect there's only a certain point at which you can pare those options back.

My friend Steve and I ran quite a few tourneys with a heavy comp Complaints were minor and same dudes kept coming back. I'm going to my first tourney in 2 yrs. Saturday and feel like my own list is OP .... To be honest I still think the best way is a single battalion detachment for tournies. That forces you to make decisions and limits spam. This fall I'll put another event together probably with this format. I,have multiple LOW's but just think they skewer the game too much. Also maybe lower it to 1500 points as well. Our one event had 24 people and was heavily comped. Only,thing that hurt attendance was store could only do Sundays. But the locals had no prob with a comped event.

Haldir wrote:
My friend Steve and I ran quite a few tourneys with a heavy comp Complaints were minor and same dudes kept coming back. I'm going to my first tourney in 2 yrs. Saturday and feel like my own list is OP .... To be honest I still think the best way is a single battalion detachment for tournies. That forces you to make decisions and limits spam. This fall I'll put another event together probably with this format. I,have multiple LOW's but just think they skewer the game too much. Also maybe lower it to 1500 points as well. Our one event had 24 people and was heavily comped. Only,thing that hurt attendance was store could only do Sundays. But the locals had no prob with a comped event.

So guard/brim spam 1-10 then?

They're already top tier, and every other army is restricted in their choices when fielding a battalion, makes literally no difference to guard or demons and their power level.

I stopped using the battalion even in causal games with my friends as 2 HQ and 3 troops equates to over half a 2k army if I'm forced to field it. And 100 conscripts will shred that in 1 turn.

Like others have said, ban the flyer wing, limit to 1 LoW, and 1 of each detachment, total of 2. It still does nothing to neuter guard/brimstone spam, but it gives the rest a fighting chance.

Again, you're playing a different game. Yeah, I think Battalion @1500 is the way to go. Curate the lists so that you can tell the one Conscript guy he needs to cut back. Or just let him win and give him the stink eye the whole time. Put the Overall winner prize on par with Best Painted.

Looking through the ATC lists, why is an army with 8 HQs OK? To look at them you'd think Elites were the actual troops and Troops are the rare veterans. What about just crashing Tacticals and Boyz together?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Klowny wrote:


Like others have said, ban the flyer wing, limit to 1 LoW, and 1 of each detachment, total of 2. It still does nothing to neuter guard/brimstone spam, but it gives the rest a fighting chance.

Can we ban the Supreme Command while we're at it? or LoWs? It seems banning one type is an overreaction to the Storm Raven spam. If they are the hot go to thing, then time to increase their points by 15-25%. You can't just single out the Detachment. Where do you stop? It seems to need to be an all or nothing sort of thing.

Or start with a Patrol Detachment. Then ban all the others except for the Auxiliary. Now the 3 starting CPs are more valuable in list building to let you move into certain specialties. All still around a core block of Troops.

I think that saying Battalion only doesn't really address many of the issues with Spam, and penalizes armies with weaker troop choices, especially if those choices are costly. As said it also negates several fluffy armies.

If you want to try to "fix" the meta I think you are better off with the following

1.)3 Detachment limit
2.) No more than 2 of any non-troop data sheet, unless all other options in that slot have been taken then you can take a 3rd data sheet (For Example, orks can only take 2 squads of boyz, unless they take at least 1 Gretchin unit, then they can take a 3rd unit of Boyz)
3.)Ban the Air wing detachment
4.) limit to one patrol detachment maximum
5.) Ban the auxiliary support detachment.
6.) My preference would be to ban the Super heavy detachment as well, but YMMV

I feel like this curbs most of the worst spam armies in the game, while still allowing most fluffy armies to field a force.

The downside may be that you have players that cannot field armies depending on their collections. SO a lot of any of this is your local meta, if people aren't really fielding super broken lists you may not need any restrictions at all.

Breng77 wrote:
I think that saying Battalion only doesn't really address many of the issues with Spam, and penalizes armies with weaker troop choices, especially if those choices are costly. As said it also negates several fluffy armies.

If you want to try to "fix" the meta I think you are better off with the following

1.)3 Detachment limit
2.) No more than 2 of any non-troop data sheet, unless all other options in that slot have been taken then you can take a 3rd data sheet (For Example, orks can only take 2 squads of boyz, unless they take at least 1 Gretchin unit, then they can take a 3rd unit of Boyz)
3.)Ban the Air wing detachment
4.) limit to one patrol detachment maximum
5.) Ban the auxiliary support detachment.
6.) My preference would be to ban the Super heavy detachment as well, but YMMV

I feel like this curbs most of the worst spam armies in the game, while still allowing most fluffy armies to field a force.

The downside may be that you have players that cannot field armies depending on their collections. SO a lot of any of this is your local meta, if people aren't really fielding super broken lists you may not need any restrictions at all.

I get where you're coming from and just have a couple of responses. First, your fix is 6 points long. That seems complex which leads to an increased chance of confusion and unintended consequences. I think simpler is better and doesn't come across as simply trying to nerf a few random problem children. There's a big gap between an ITC tourney, the local weekly scene and 3-4 guys getting together on a random Sat once a month and the Open/Narrative/Matched Play structure doesn't address that very well. Second, I think that fluffy lists can exist under a single reasonable FoC. They were there all through 3rd for example. I think there is a sense that some people are playing by the spirit of the whole thing and how can we protect those people from doing their thing while reining in the kick you in the teeth sorts of lists.