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.

Somewhere, in between the full on ITC tourney and the utterly Casual Narrative of "Unbound" and beer and pretzels gaming lies what I would guesstimate is the average META.

I'm trying to figure out a way to look at my list and make sure that it is at neither end of this scale.

Before I start I'd like to outline a few assumptions, or constants that we accept as given in this scenario:
ForgeWorld units exist - some good some bad, but they are available and for the most part currently don't seem Pay-2-win
Matched play with points rather than PL is a given (at least for my local meta) so if we can please avoid the merits of either outside of if there's a good way to look at them on an individual model basis
House rules are not a thing, play is according to GW sources only (No ITC/ETC/ HIWPI rules etc.)

With that said - the end result I'm looking for is being able to bring a TAC list vs any other faction (where they are following the same rules of engagement) and we both have a good time and it's not an outright thrashing for either party unless one really really rolls bad or came straight from the bar!

For example, back in 7th Necrons got the Decurion early on and it was pretty much Reviled until Skyhammer came along. outside of that folks had a very good idea what units/combinations were WAAC and which were shelved.

How do we make lists that are good but not complete cheese lists ?

 Reanimation_Protocol wrote:
How do we make lists that are good but not complete cheese lists ?

Balance the underlying system.

Attempts have been made to work around the problems with things like rule of 3, highlander, no allies, etc but they almost invariably end up making the weakest forces weaker - the powerful and well rounded factions just move to the next power list.

Outside of GW balancing the system themselves (as noted by A.T. above) this isn't really a question anyone here can answer. The concept of an "OK, not full-on competitive but not terrible" list is something that will be very particular to each group. Once you start trying to self-police the power of your list you will always run into problems where some people will consider some things too powerful while others will be fine with them. That's not to say it's an unsolvable problem, just that you'll need to solve it on a more local level than asking a forum. That's not very helpful, I know, but it's the reality of the situation.

Slipspace wrote:
Outside of GW balancing the system themselves (as noted by A.T. above) this isn't really a question anyone here can answer. The concept of an "OK, not full-on competitive but not terrible" list is something that will be very particular to each group. Once you start trying to self-police the power of your list you will always run into problems where some people will consider some things too powerful while others will be fine with them. That's not to say it's an unsolvable problem, just that you'll need to solve it on a more local level than asking a forum. That's not very helpful, I know, but it's the reality of the situation.

No that's cool I understand the difficulty and agree with you.

it is a question we've asked at a local level to try and run an event.

do we ban Superheavy? - well the guy who plays knights isn't invited now

do we ban stuff above a certain PL ? - OK then no Custodes or Daemon princes or any other strong models

ban Vehicles, ban FW, ban ban ban .. OK let's just play poker instead eh?

is pretty much where we got to

I think it's a worthwhile idea if you have a local group who play regularly to try and set some parameters to ensure it's not just the guy who buys the meta always winning.

My tournament that I'm running is attempting to do this by enforcing an army comp. If you care enough to read the full rulespack and comp info it lives here: https://deathbeforedishonour.co.uk/rulespack/

However the Cliff Notes version is...

- You must bring at least one Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy detachment, which must contain your warlord. This is your "Primary Detachment"
- You will only gain CPs from detachments that exactly match the keywords of your Primary Detachment - NO EXCEPTIONS.
- You only gain the +3 CPs for “Battleforged” if all your detachments have matching keywords… with some exceptions (e.g. if you're admech you can take a Mechanicus Knight and keep your 3cp. If you are Death Guard you can take Nurgle Daemons and keep your 3cp. If you're Drukhari you can mix covens, kabals and cults and keep your 3cp... that sort of thing)

People have only been submitting armies for a couple of days and I can't share the lists, but I am alrady seeing exactly what I wanted to... people not wanting to give up precious CPs, so bringing mono-faction armies.

A tyranids list where everything is the same Hive Fleet
Single chapter Marine armies
Knights where they are all the same Household rather than min-maxed

There are no limits on Forge World units - I don't believe any are that OP.

I'm not saying it's perfect but I think it bashes off some of the insanity of your classic "15CPs from guard spent all on 2 smashcaptains and a castellan or some jetbikes" type lists.