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.

All too often, I end up playing someone who has forgotten the most important rule(any takers on what that rule is?).  They have some cut-and-paste, downloaded off the internet, completely unbalanced,  and utterly unpleasant to play army composition which relies on two minimal troop choices, and as much goo as they can shoehorn in with a monkey wrench and a single minded determination to ruin someone else's day.  Needless to say, eventually everyone else gets tired of playing this person(or persons) and can't seem to find an oppontent willing to jump into the thresher.  Now, at first glance, this statement may seem like fuel for the usual flame wars that occur frequently on boards such as this; indeed, that is it's likely result, just not it's (or should I say my) intention.  Rather, I would like to bridge the gap between such soon to be lonely gamers and the rest of us who would rather not play the Rock-Paper-Scissors that the current army composition rules allow.


If you find yourself unable to get a game even though there are gamers all around you, first think back to how you've behaved in previous games.(No, this is not a I'm Mr. High and Mighty; I've been on both sides of power/fun gamer spectrum).  Unpleasant behavior is the number one cause of the Power gamer label.  This particular disease is covered suffieciently in other forums, and bears repeating.  But it is not the subject of this post.  

The current model of army selection is insufficiant to lead people in the right direction on what would make a "proper"(balanced force).  1 HQ and 2 Troop choices is fine for 500 to 1000 points, but in bigger games it is simply not good enough.  Larger forces (I know, in "reality") are more likely to consist of more and more troops, and not just more and more and more "TOYS".  Game developers do not always think of everything, and lets face it; it's a tough job.  This last version is pretty darn good, except in this respect.  A lot of the name calling and unpleasant behavior could be eliminated if only we could better explain what and how much of what units people should and should not take to make a consistly more enjoyable game.  

I think the single best idea for fixing these problems has already been in place in the fantasy version of warhammer, The Choosing Troops Chart. If you were to modify it for 40k it would look something like this:

                HQ    TR    EL    FA    HS    Full Strength Squads

 500pts+     1      2      0-1    0-1    0-1        1+
1000pts+    1+    2+    0-2    0-2    0-2        1+
1500pts+    2      3+    0-2    0-2    0-2        2+    
2000pts+    2      4+    0-3    0-3    0-3        2+

This would eliminate a lot of fustration with unbalanced armies because it would require gamers to use troops at a level commisserate with the points level being played and limit the uses of other choices to more appropriate levels.  Also, power gamers would have to spend points on something other than "uberness" and might actually have to use troops to win the game, because they will not be able to use all the toys at once.

 It solves a lot of problems, but not all of them.  This solution does not prevent the min/max squads problem(perhaps a requirement of one full strength squad for every 1000pts?); The seer army of doom(How 'bout a squad cap?) and the ubiquitous Elites or FA as Troops(Just, NO!) or extra HS or FA slot(also, NO!)

Of course getting true power gamers to play with these simple fixes will require a whole new version of the game, or at least a Chapter Approved article (Which the company says it will never do again).  But those who've merely been lead estray can better know what is appropriate and  regain the spirit of gaming that everyone can enjoy.

Meh...GW could just make all its entries in each force org slot in ever codex just as good as another. For example see Privateer Press. O and I still love GW games guilty pleasure.

Nicely done.  However, as you mentioned, it would require a reworking of all the codexes and rulebooks, since at its core, all Troops across the codexes are not created equally. 

This pretty much works in Fantasy because everything is pointed off the 'basic human' statline.  Equal points of troops from different army books are roughly equal (I think)...

The way to make games a little more interesting, and to limit abuses is to limit game sizes.  40k is best balanced around 1500 points.  People don't like to play games at that level, because you can't take all the nice 'toys'.  So, you see 1850 (GT standard in the States) and 2000 point lists.

Try only playing games at 1000 or 1500 points.  You really need to be careful what you take, and if you want to take that termie squad with 2 assault cannons, you'll have to sacrifice in other areas.

I've had some of the best games in 4th ed using 1000 point lists lately. 

Slightly confused.  Are you saying two full troop choices would be required for 1500+ points? From a guard perspective is that requiring to full platoons? I think thats something on the order of 110 guys.

This benefits certain lists but harms others.  Troopy marines would do just fine. Other forces would be more limited.  Having said that the limits proposed are not onerous (except for the required squads if thats whats being proposed). 

we have the problem on several of our tournaments and I talked to the organizer about a similar sytem. but he says, the problem is, that there are too many armies, who can take HS as an elite choice for example, so it would be unfair for armies who work with older codicies.

I don't think that a forced outmaxed troop choice would solve the problem, because there are some units you just wan't to use this way: Chaos for example, and 30 Orks are too easy to hit and too difficult too move.

jfrazell: I thought of that as well, but infantry platoons are not your ONLY troop choice. Armored fists squads could be used to fulfill such a requirement.

Anung Un Rama: Please read above...I had already expressed my displeasure with force organization chart swaps game mechanic.... also Slugga Boyz and Shoota Boyz are not the only troop choices available; They could use maxed out Tank Busta's and such (By the way, out of the 5 40k armies I own, my favorite is ORKS!!!!!WAAAAUUUGGHHH!!!!). As to the difficulty of moving mass amounts of Orks, yes this is a problem, especially in a tournament enviornment, and indeed deserves it's own thread(Personally, I think that the time limits on tournament games kills the orks, when often they don't win unitl turns 4, 5 and 6 which you will never get to, especially if your opponent drags his feet!)

As far as Chaos is conserned, they are often, but not always one of the worst offenders(I have a Chaos Army too) But they shouldn't be unfairly penalized either.  I think that perhaps a double of the number of chaos may be a good replacement for max squad size: 12 for Slannesh, 14 for Nurgle, 16 for Khorne; with one notable exception: 9 for Tzenntch (or however you spell it) this high number has kept them from being one of the Cheezier Armies and because of that they deserve a break(No, I do not have or intend to have a Tzeentch army)

Alright, constructive critisism is both appreicated and expected.  Any other ideas or armies that would have problems with my idea?
Also, do you have any ideas to make the game more balanced and interesting?  I am waiting......

I like it, but for me, the non min-maxer, it's too restrictive. Maybe i want t otry out some "unbalanced" army compositions, but this chart would kill me.
In a Tournament enviroment, i like to see it, even though, as Brother CPT Ginn said, why not take the more elegant road,
and balance the codiecies properly? (GW is on a better way now)

Greets
Schepp himself

If you take a non-doctrine force you are restrictred to platoons and a maximum of one armored fist squad. thats still minimum 65 guys and a vulnerable tank as required vs. two scout squads for marines.

GW just should have implemented a Fantasy Battle type system into the new codexes as they went along. Simply put, *any* type of arbitrary composition restriction at this point is going to favor some armies and hinder others as Cruentus quite rightly pointed out.

Can IG and Orks manage to pull off a list with this system? Absolutely. But they won't be able to create the same kind of effective forces as armies whose Troop choices are both usefull, small and relatively cheap.

Each codex needs to be carefully looked at, and units need to be classified like they are in Fantasy Battle. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a hell of a lot better than the current Force Org system.


One thing that has always baffled me when people create comp systems is why they try to pretend that they are making an unbiased system when they clearly aren't? Why can't we just own up to the fact that it is incredibly easy for loyalist marines, Eldar and some other armies to take a bunch of maximum sized troop choices and still be perfectly lethal? Most importantly, why can't we target these easy to abuse armies specifically?

Why can't we throw out the whole "maximum sized troop choice" concept except for the armies that need to have such a concept applied? If Orks don't want to take maximum sized troop choices, who cares? Ignore the Orks and apply the rule to Space Marines. Be biased because the system described above is biased; although likely not intentional, it *is*.

So I say to everyone: Stop looking for the perfect comp system that can solve all the ills of the 40K codexes. It ain't going to happen. Own up to the things you don't like about the game and put restrictions in place to eliminate those things. People who like your ideas will play in your tournaments. Those who don't, won't (they'll just go gripe about it). At least everyone will clearly know where and why your bias lies and which, I think, makes it easier to accept or forget about.

Every time I see these comp attempts I wonder why it is set up like Yakface said. Marines will still be able to have a lascannon and plasma gun squad(now with 4 more wounds than most efficient, big deal). Now look at Necrons. In an 1850pt game you just forced them to take 760pts in 2 units. Ouch.

Having played as Chaos I can tell you I have made plenty of lists that are still utterly effective while not being hurt by that suggestion or any other restrictions put in place. I've seen a tourney comp list that effectively penalized me in ties for having a Bloodthirster even though it is a legal and fairly well balanced part of my list. Being told my army is going to take a hit in overall score because my army relys on heavy support and HQ slots to kill tanks is unfair. How are Tau supposed to do when their troops slots don't really bother tanks?


Breaking certain combos is the best way to make a tournament fair. "Comp scores will be given by the judges and based on if your efficiency. If your list is deigned to be over the top and lacks flavor, you will be docked points." Let them know a Librarian in a drop pod with Fear is likely to see points shaved off fast. More than 3 Obliterators might see the same situation as would 6 troops slots filled with 6 marines and las/plas. Let them know there is a difference between being in character of a force and making them utterly for the maximum effect. Tell them it is subjective and they can't argue it with you. The players will come and the ones that want to rape the system will either stop showing up after they see they were called on it, or they will fix their lists.

I've been thinking of starting comp with a number then giving a list of things that subtract from your score. We say a tourney a few months ago that was kinda like that.

Start with 30 points.
-1 for every troop squad starting under 10 men (unless maxed out or at their Chaos chosen number). It hurts mostly the armies with better troops (already an advantage in itself)

-1 for every dedicated transport beyond the 4th in an army. Hurts mostly drop pods.

-1 for every repeated heavy weapon (or assault 4 weapon) beyond the 3rd in an army unless it is a free weapon the trooper/vehicle is armed with to start. Meaning you can have a bunch of heavy weapons, you just need to have a mix.

Obviously this list would have to be hammered out in a forum such as this (with lots of different armies represented, and lots of rules lawyers) so you don't hinder an army that your trying to help. A nice list of about 6 or 7 rules places comp solely in the hands of the player making their army list. It is quantifiable, and objective, and easy to use.

Also, since some armies like Guard, Tau, and even Necrons have squads they MUST take, why aren't Marines as troops of all things 1+? Just a little observation.

I have hoped for a system like the one proposed here for sometime. For charachter armies (Death Wing, etc.) it becomes so much easier to make them, all troops and plenty of them. As for the mandatory max squads-technically an IG platoon with the mandatory two SQUADS would have maxed out squads, just not a maxed out troop choice, so I dont think guard would suffer too much, orks, necrons, nids and some others might suffer though so perhaps dont require the maxed out squad, rather in a tournment setting give bonus points for having them perhaps.

Yes I can see where the lists that have a strength in troop choices would like this. But there are many lists that would not benefit from this. No thanks. I'd rather optimize my last then worry about this.

Posted By Voltaire on 07/10/2006 3:18 PM
jfrazell: I thought of that as well, but infantry platoons are not your ONLY troop choice. Armored fists squads could be used to fulfill such a requirement.

Anung Un Rama: Please read above...I had already expressed my displeasure with force organization chart swaps game mechanic.... also Slugga Boyz and Shoota Boyz are not the only troop choices available; They could use maxed out Tank Busta's and such (By the way, out of the 5 40k armies I own, my favorite is ORKS!!!!!WAAAAUUUGGHHH!!!!). As to the difficulty of moving mass amounts of Orks, yes this is a problem, especially in a tournament enviornment, and indeed deserves it's own thread(Personally, I think that the time limits on tournament games kills the orks, when often they don't win unitl turns 4, 5 and 6 which you will never get to, especially if your opponent drags his feet!)

As far as Chaos is conserned, they are often, but not always one of the worst offenders(I have a Chaos Army too) But they shouldn't be unfairly penalized either.  I think that perhaps a double of the number of chaos may be a good replacement for max squad size: 12 for Slannesh, 14 for Nurgle, 16 for Khorne; with one notable exception: 9 for Tzenntch (or however you spell it) this high number has kept them from being one of the Cheezier Armies and because of that they deserve a break(No, I do not have or intend to have a Tzeentch army)

Alright, constructive critisism is both appreicated and expected.  Any other ideas or armies that would have problems with my idea?
Also, do you have any ideas to make the game more balanced and interesting?  I am waiting......

With the Chaos numbers, cant you use multiples of the sacred number or am I crazy? (I really could be crazy since I use the sacred number in my Black Legion just to be fluffy and planned on using multiples of the sacred number for the mutants in my LatD army)

These things are always fun. I can take my Armored company and be obscenely "comp" yet every one would still scream cheese at me.
1 HQ (vanquisher)
1 Elite (vanquisher)
4 troops (4 Leman Russ)
1Heavy support: 1 demolisher or 1 basi
1FA -hellhound perhaps?

As with any set of rules, the more specific they become the more loopholes appear. There is no fair comp system. Some armies are better than others, or as GW would say some armies present more of a challenge to play than others.

I have found that the best way to control comp is with the mission scenarios themselves. Do not play victory point games and comp concerns will be weeded out. I have used mission scenarios to weed out one trick ponies and armies that go off a deep end in the Adepticon Gladiator for the last 2 years. Make a 3 tiered mission with primary, secondary and tertiary objectives. That gives you 9 objectives during a 3 game tournament. Now use these objectives to coral certain army types. Make an objective that will be difficult for an all infantry army, an all vehicle army, an army with a 500+ pt. unit, an army with nothing but 120pt or less units, an army with all 4 wound creatures, an army all mounted in transports, an army with all 2+ saves, an army with all ap 2 weapons, etc..etc..

This will control the comp in a tournament and an area much more than trying to make a comp system that will have loopholes in it and it will present new and interesting challenges to everyone involved. No more lining up across the 'plains of Nebraska' and rolling to hit with 13 lascannons. Your army has 3 things it needs to do and some of those things need to be done quickly so just blowing away the enemy and claiming stuff at the end it out of the question. Be the first to destroy the enemies lowest pt. unit, be the first to a certain spot on the table, etc..

Be creative.

Darth Diggler speaks the truth. By making missions more involved with objectives, it pretty much minimizes armies that rely on racking up victory points or certain Dog and Pony Show Armies?

Capt K

Unless your tactic is to completely wipe your opponent of course, then you can grab the mission objectives later.

That's what my Tau do. My force tends to be pretty balanced so it can grab objectives and fulfill missions though.