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.

Highlander = There can only be one. Your army list cannot include more than one of the same unit, including troops/battleline.

I've played this sort of event exactly once, at my local tabletop gaming store, during a previous 40k edition (back when there was still a FOC, but obviously the FOC did not apply to that format). I believe the game size was 1000 or 1500 pts, as some players or factions would struggle to reach 2000 pts with only one unit of each datasheet. Admittedly, it's a very gimmicky format, perhaps best suited for some sort of casual "exhibition" event to onboard new players and give more experienced players a chance to dust off models that haven't seen much use in a while. Competitive players will hate it, since spam often wins games.

I suppose the closest thing in spirit would be last edition's combat patrols, back when each patrol included at least one vehicle or monster for variety's sake. Except that Highlander allows a bigger army and still gives you some say in your army list.

Is this something anyone else has heard of, or was it just a random idea from the owner of my local store?

.

I have heard of it, but not in a long time. Never actually seen anyone play.

You'll forgive me if that particular rule appears to favour some armies more than others.

"Oh no, I'm limited to a mere 7 Space Marine Captains! How will I cope?"

Meanwhile, Dark Eldar have about 5 infantry units that are going to be fighting over the 2 dedicated transports they're permitted.

Still, could be worse. I guess Harlequins get to have all of 1 Troop choice. And 1 dedicated transport that all their characters will probably want to use as well. Maybe they could get a special rule that increases its capacity, so that they could have a literal clown car?

So... a typical Imperial Knights army?

Played it in 6th ed at a couple one day tourneys. IIRC, we played 1500 pts to accommodate armies with fewer unit options.

 vipoid wrote:
You'll forgive me if that particular rule appears to favour some armies more than others.

"Oh no, I'm limited to a mere 7 Space Marine Captains! How will I cope?"

Meanwhile, Dark Eldar have about 5 infantry units that are going to be fighting over the 2 dedicated transports they're permitted.

Oh absolutely. It's not meant to be balanced. It's part of why Highlander format works only for casual games of a relatively small size. Above 1500 pts, some factions quickly run out of options... or at least, players do, because most players don't have models for every unit in their codex.

To a lesser extent than Highlander format, the current Rule of Three also somewhat favors armies that have different datasheets for slight variants of the same unit (instead of just different wargear options). Space Marines being, once again, a major offender.

.

This format would really strain the narrative potential of an escalation army. I always try to find a way to let the battles I fight have an impact on how the army grows- so for example, my the growth of my Drukhari subfactions will depend upon which territories we conquer; GSC accumulate Brood Brother units by taking out guard forces with purestrains, the Sisters and Guard requisition reinforcements based on need after uncovering threats, etc.

And when you're hoping to grow from 500 points to 3K using those narrative hooks, Highlander just doesn't work.

I like to see variety in army lists.
But I think it’s better to encourage it positively than restrict it or give negative pressure.

It should be incentivized to take diverse units, not forced. And you shouldn’t be artificially punished for taking the same units.

The only time I'd ever play that would be:
● if only 1 of anything was all I had.
● it just naturally worked out that way - my 1k pt game last week almost qualified. Alas, I used 2 Hell Drakes....(poor things should only count as 1 no matter how many you put on the table)

It used to be a fairly common term in the game discussion to mean what you say.
I don't think however it was ever common for tournaments etc..Some stores would run events with similar limitations in mind.

There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

Since books tended to have a significant variance of power across the units, this mitigated some of the issues. 7th Edition Eldar for example - a nightmare if your list is mainly Wraith Knights, Scatter Laser Bikes and idk, next offender maybe Warp Spiders. If however you bought some Storm Guardians and Rangers, 1 unit each of the weaker Aspect Warriors etc etc, the power level rapidly went down.

Certainly in 10th GW has gone away from it by design - as the detachments favour smaller elements of the roster, and this only really makes sense if you take multiples. (I mean you could not, but its so obviously weaker, and dilutes the theme).

Tyel wrote:
There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

This sounds more reasonable, honestly.

-Guardsman- wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
You'll forgive me if that particular rule appears to favour some armies more than others.

"Oh no, I'm limited to a mere 7 Space Marine Captains! How will I cope?"

Meanwhile, Dark Eldar have about 5 infantry units that are going to be fighting over the 2 dedicated transports they're permitted.

Oh absolutely. It's not meant to be balanced. It's part of why Highlander format works only for casual games of a relatively small size. Above 1500 pts, some factions quickly run out of options... or at least, players do, because most players don't have models for every unit in their codex.

To a lesser extent than Highlander format, the current Rule of Three also somewhat favors armies that have different datasheets for slight variants of the same unit (instead of just different wargear options). Space Marines being, once again, a major offender.

.

In previous editions where doing this was more popular things generally didn't have more than one datasheet for different load outs too.

Tyel wrote:


There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

You realize that those armies in WD looked like that because you were being fed an advertisement, right?
They intentionally showed you a variety of units.

ccs wrote:
You realize that those armies in WD looked like that because you were being fed an advertisement, right?
They intentionally showed you a variety of units.

Yes, obviously.
But it was also how the people writing the rules actually played.

Highlander down to the squad level in those reports.

What guns to give your dev squad? In editions before split fire? One of each obviously!

WD special loadouts...

My gaming group(s) played some highlander style tournaments and casual games in 7th and (mainly) in 8th, largely as a reaction to some of the more spammy options in the meta. Highlander meant that you were making it a lot harder to field some of the obviously cheesy detachments (aspect host, triptide, stuff like that). And in 8th, it was sort of a pre-rule-of-3 attempt to keep people from just spamming 6 flyrants or whatever their army's flavor of the month was.

I noticed way less emphasis on/interest in highlander style games in late 8th onward, and I think that's because a lot of rules just kind of disencentivized some of the spam we saw before. Tournaments brought out the rule of 3 some time in 8th, iirc, and stratagems only being usable once per turn meant that it was less efficient to spam the same unit 3 times rather than taking a wider variety of units that can leverage more of your best strats.

For example, I remember a buddy of mine explaining that taking 2 exocrines in late 8th was great because the first exocrine made good use of certain strats (probably a shoot twice strat?) while the second exocrine inherited his shoot twice duty when the first one died. But you definitely wouldn't want a third exocrine because the game will be over by the time that third guy gets to use the Good Strat.

9th also make unit spam less appealing by charging CP for extra detachment and for detachments that gave you more non-troop slots.

I feel like 10th still has some of that stratagem consideration going on, and obviously we have the rule of 3, but it also just kind of rewards you for taking units that can infiltrate/scout, some units that can do actions/score, some units that can sit on an objective, some units that can actually hit hard, some support units to help those hammer units hit hard, etc. So at least in the armies I play, I'm kind of encouraged to have a wide variety of units in my army in the first place.

I love highlander games and play them here and there at my shop. I've never played in a highlander event though.

It was generally how I used to build my armies, just because I wanted variety and didn't want to build and paint the same unit twice.

Now the opposite is being forced on me just by the sheer lack of options in codexes like Drukhari and Emperors Children.

I recall a tournament from late 4th IIRC

Players could break the highlander rules but suffered a victory point penalty for each infraction.
Necrons were explicitly called out as being unable to field a valid army without penalty... and were still not given excemption.

Which kind of summed up highlander back then at tournament points levels (1500-2500) - for some it was a mild inconvenience, for others it was a penalty.
And it tended to make weak books weaker.

If it entirely replaces the FoC (of any flavour or vintage) I think it could work.

I’d also want to pour over every Codex, and put a matching the Codex with the least variety on Battleline Units as well, to help minimise skew and wonk.

So, let’s say Codex Necrons has the fewest Battle Line units, at 3. Therefore, no army may include more than 3 Batteline units.

While there have definitely been times when its produced more interesting army lists in the past, I don't really feel the need for it currently. Rule of 3 carries the same spirit and the Rule of 2 in Incursion is actually the point where I feel like you get what people actually want out of Highlander. Rule of 2 in general is where I think the game feels the best and for the most part I think GW has created enough tools in 10th that you build a bit to that naturally as is.

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:


There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

You realize that those armies in WD looked like that because you were being fed an advertisement, right?
They intentionally showed you a variety of units.

Yes, and it looks cool! It still does! I'll take a visually interesting list over some barely sensible smattering of semi-spammed units any day.

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:


There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

You realize that those armies in WD looked like that because you were being fed an advertisement, right?
They intentionally showed you a variety of units.

Yes, and it looks cool! It still does! I'll take a visually interesting list over some barely sensible smattering of semi-spammed units any day.

You'll have to give me an example or two of what you consider some barely sensible smattering of semi-spammed units.
Because I'm sure our opinions on what that looks like are completely different & I can't envision what you mean.
Start with an easy one - a SM force (any chapter, or just generic).
Then give me a force of your choosing.

ccs wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

ccs wrote:

Tyel wrote:


There was a strong argument in older editions (3rd to 7th) that the game was "balanced" (to a degree) around "Soft Highlander" lists. Which you most commonly saw in White Dwarf. You might have multiples of troops and transports (typically this was necessary anyway) and potentially duplicate characters - but you'd only have 1 of each type of elites/Fast attack/heavy support.

You realize that those armies in WD looked like that because you were being fed an advertisement, right?
They intentionally showed you a variety of units.

Yes, and it looks cool! It still does! I'll take a visually interesting list over some barely sensible smattering of semi-spammed units any day.

You'll have to give me an example or two of what you consider some barely sensible smattering of semi-spammed units.
Because I'm sure our opinions on what that looks like are completely different & I can't envision what you mean.
Start with an easy one - a SM force (any chapter, or just generic).
Then give me a force of your choosing.

A cool WD style list for raven guard in my head without points in front of me to give accurate numbers:

- Jump character/named character
- Phobos character
- Unit of jump intercessors
- Unit of infiltrators
- Unit of intercessors
- A pair of invictors
- Smaller unit of Vanguard vets
- Eliminators
- Lancer
- Redemptor

10 man bricks of infantry where possible rather than any MSU.

Comparing to a recent high placing space marine army (although blood angels) from a few weeks back:
- captain
- jump pack captain
- lemartes
- dante
- combi-weapon lieutenant
- 5 jump ints
- 5 jump ints
- 10 jump death company
- 5 jump death company
- 5 jump death company
- 5 infiltrators
- 6 sang guard
- 5 scouts
- 10 jump vanguard

At a surface glance that looks like a theme, until you realise that 2 captains and a chapter master are all there, 5 man MSU of specialist squads have been spammed, the only core infantry is msu jump spam again with no actual rank and file line troops and a small section of infiltrators for rules purpose with a lieutenant who is there purely for his rules. There's also no armoured support, which sure "theme" can be argued but marines typically take some back up with them.

You are right, this is entirely subjective, but one of those is built around aesthetics and a vision of a mixed force ala space marine fluff. The other is "what if I rammed some named characters into spammed death company".

I think because its aesthetics I can see both sides.

I mean I liked the old White Dwarf armies in part because they were adverts of the range. I thought - as a teenager - "wow, I wish I had an army like that."

Consider this:

Avatar
Farseer
Storm Guardians
Guardian Defenders
5 Rangers
Some 5 man Aspect Squads
5 Wraith Guard
1 Wraith Lord
1 War Walker
1 Vyper
1 Fire Prism
1 Falcon

(Dig up up one of the old White Dwarfs where they were showing off their new Biel Tan army.)
It looks a bit messy versus:

1 Farseer on Jetbike
3*10 Dire Avengers in
3 Wave Serpents
3 Fire Prisms
2 units of War Walkers

Ignoring points etc.

The first is a grab-bag that feels a bit unnatural. The second feels (to me) like a mechanized Eldar military force that might logically be deployed on a battlefield.

But you are still being contained by the rule of 3 - its not "one warlock and 8 Fire Prisms".

But aesthetics are subjective. Some people didn't like my observation that 10th edition lists were becoming AoS-like. So Eldar might be:

Avatar
3 Fire Prisms
10 man Wraithguard Brick with supporting buff bots.
2*5 Swooping Hawks for scoring.

But to me that doesn't feel like a "real force" - and it also isn't a great advert of the range. Its just a good force for winning games of early 10th 40k. Its not showing off a collection - or trying for a "fluffier" formation.

Keep in mind that historically, the game was just another facet of a collecting hobby. It wasn't the focus, and it didn't cater to tournament players or min-max optimization. Early GW-sponsored tournaments even penalized cheesy armies and put limitations on duplicate units- I can go dig up my old WDs if anyone's curious about the specifics.

The point is, taking three each of a couple of units wasn't how the designers envisioned it, wasn't how they playtested, and wasn't how folks who collected an army as a hobby project first and a competitive game second tended to buy.

You could make the argument that an Imperial Guard company showing up with a single Leman Russ and a single Basilisk doesn't really reflect the formation-fighting they do in the fluff, but I know a lot of folks who would buy one of each because they wanted to paint one of each, not skip two-thirds of the codex and paint the same units multiple times. Rigid adherence to the fluff was always secondary to having fun with the hobby in your own way.

 vipoid wrote:
You'll forgive me if that particular rule appears to favour some armies more than others.

Every on-size-fit-all comp system like that just creates another form of imbalance instead of fixing it. Just like you're saying, some armies are crippled others don't care at all.

I have seen a couple of really good comp systems over my decades in the hobby (Swedish comp of 5th/6th comes to mind) and they always were faction- and unit-specific, not general "carpet bombing" ones.

I played it as a self-limiting rule in 6th edition with my 6th edition Eldar because they were so broken, and I play causal so don't want to just pants everyone. It is actually quite a fun challenge and kind of cool in that you get to use a wide range of units, sometimes things you would probably not otherwise bring. I recommend trying it for a casual game.

In the days of no wargear major equipment changes are instead now a different unit entirely. So even with highlander rules you could still be facing 2,000pts of questoris knights or differently armed space marines.