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.

Hi all,

So the question is which rule set do you find the most balanced for tournaments?

I know there is the ITC format, but haven't tried playing by it.

Are there any other formats?Please provide links if possible.

Thanks

The glib answer would be "not at all."

AFAIK the ITC is kind of the de-facto standard for Tournaments nowadays.

Timur wrote:
Hi all,

So the question is which rule set do you find the most balanced for tournaments?

I know there is the ITC format, but haven't tried playing by it.

Are there any other formats?Please provide links if possible.

Thanks

Most tournaments use the default GW matched play rules these days. The biggest difference between formats is just what missions you use and possibly a ban list of some kind.

The days of tournaments putting out their own FAQs is kinda gone tbh.

ERJAK wrote:

Timur wrote:
Hi all,

So the question is which rule set do you find the most balanced for tournaments?

I know there is the ITC format, but haven't tried playing by it.

Are there any other formats?Please provide links if possible.

Thanks

Most tournaments use the default GW matched play rules these days. The biggest difference between formats is just what missions you use and possibly a ban list of some kind.

The days of tournaments putting out their own FAQs is kinda gone tbh.

I dont really like the standard matched play rules, sometimes you may lose just because of unlucky tactical objectives.

I assume this is why ITC uses their own missions for tournaments where you have your main objective and can choose your secondary objectives.

As far as i know the upcoming LVO also uses ITC rules, so i was just wondering about what people think about these rules?Are they balanced?Are they more fun than regular rules?Do they bring more tactical decisions to the table?

Play maelstrom and eternal war mission on top of each other. Missions are instantly more interesting as you have a goal at the end of the game as well as during it.

If you play the missions from Chapter Approved then the game doesn't need anything else.

Some areas adopt ITC, but it's mostly out of habit from 7th.

GW scenarios are so bad that if you limit yourself to those...

Also any semi serious tournament requires better terrain rules. Official ones SUCK. Mostly by being non-existant.

ITC mainly, although I think the maelstrom missions in chapter approved are really good, maybe if you had static placement of the objectives rather than wherever you want.

I honestly feel that ITC, if they are going to be the de facto standard for tournaments, needs to do more than just missions. The GW terrain rules are terrible; ITC should really do a "tournament play" subset of matched play and include their own restrictions and minor tweaks (not as bad as they had to do in 7th edition with their own FAQs) to help curb all of the tournament abuses you see with the base matched play rules. Whether that's like limiting to a single detachment, changing how keywords or stratagems work, limiting lords of war, I'm not sure but you get the idea; they need to take it upon themselves to fix a lot of the glaring issues with tournament play.

At the very least I think they need to do more for terrain rules. For example, forests block LOS to units that are not within it (i.e. you can see into a forest, but not through it), things like that.

We play mostly ITC in my local area. In regards to ITC doing more and introducing more restrictions, terrain rules, etc., - I doubt you'll ever see it happen. Given that they've partnered with GW as playtesters/have been involved in the direction of 8th edition they're a bit hamstrung. They have more of a compelling reason to play out of the book as it were.

The most common style adopted I see is ITC.