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.

Recently, my flgs has instituted a mandatory 50% troops restriction on tournament lists (I.e. at least half of your points MUST be spent on troop choices). This was primarily brought on by many local players struggling to deal with power lists, generally involving either lots of flyers or lots of flying MC models. So far this is a requirement for all point levels, 750-1750 so far. Proxies/standins are allowed for troop models so long as they are reasonable and identifiable, to promote equal opportunity for those that don't have the required amount of troops.
Obviously I have my own opinions on it, but I just thought I'd see what the community's opinion was on this sort of restriction. Do you think it is a functional response? Why do you think it is, or why do you think it isn't? If you think it's an ineffective countermeasure, what would you propose as an alternative?

Just as a splash of background for context, our community mostly plays:
Necrons, Eldar, Tau, Marines (of various flavors, mostly DA or BA), Daemons, Mech Guard, and a recent surge of Orkz.
Generally we see Necron or Daemon victors, though most newer codices can be found in 1st through 3rd most months.

It's a stupid idea and I would take my money elsewhere if a store tried to impose it.

You say that about everything though.

Personally, I think it could be fun, but it won't balance the game. Would have no problem playing it, but I roll Orks so more troops is better for me

I dunno, man. As an Armored Battlegroup player, I wouldn't mind.

"You know those ten tanks you like to run so much?"
"Yeah!"
"Well, now 50% of your points has to be spent on troops."
"Ah, eh, 6 of them are troops-choice-tanks anyways."

My main gripe is that it prevents people from being able to play what they prefer.
I have a fairly strong bias, as I've won a number of tourneys with my Fateweaver/DP mainstays, which I prefer more out of simplicity than anything else. While I appreciate 100+ model armies, I find 20-30 models more manageable and fun to play.
My counter argument for "but your lists are too strong" tends to be equally simplistic, generally consisting of "so build a stronger one". It's a tournament, after all, not a beginner's league.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And add to that the fact that I can't take DT, I don't particularly want to buy/build 60 more Horrors to play a 1500pt game without proxies.

Eh, any comp will 'prevent people from being able to play what they prefer'. And so would no comp, by virtue of allowing min-maxed builds to steamroll over the Flash Gitz that I can take technically but not in any practical sense. And so does updating a codex - maybe I preferred the older edition?

"So build a stronger one" might suit you and your cut throat mindset, but it doesn't suit everyone, because your looking for one thing and others for something else.

I think the best answer is to have "tournaments" and "events" - keep the tournaments as they are and let the 2+ rerolls and gak bash heads, meanwhile people who want more relaxed or fluffy games can head to the "event"

Well 75%+ of my list is troops so, this doesn't have any impact on me at all.

Still think it's silly though.

That makes far more sense. I'm far from cutthroat in most games, but if I've paid for a chance to win money, it seems silly to not do my best to win.
And it's not that others specifically oppose that mindset, but rather they just don't seem to want to put the effort into a winning list.

I love the idea of campaigns and events, but players here don't seem to show up unless there is money to be won.

 Dakkamite wrote:
Eh, any comp will 'prevent people from being able to play what they prefer'.

Yes, but the question of whether comp is good depends on whether it unnecessarily prevents people from playing what they want. A comp system that bans screamerstar and Riptide spam only removes the specific lists that are causing problems. A comp system that requires a minimum of 50% of your points in troops bans a lot of other lists in addition to the "unfair" ones, and for no good reason.

Plus, it doesn't even make much sense. Let's say we're playing a 1500 point game and I'm playing Tau. I have to spend a minimum of 750 points on troops, but even taking six full squads of fire warriors only ~650 points. That means I'd have to start buying a bunch of useless upgrades just to eat up points, even though I've already fulfilled the spirit of the "bring lots of troops" rule. That kind of rule only really works if you assume that everyone plays marine armies with expensive troops and weaker support that they don't really mind not being able to spend more than half their points on.

Why not? It just encourages use of strategy, adaptation, not just leaning on power army list (which of course use strategy too). Its still same game.

On the other hand, it would be nice to rotate "formats" for sometimes people would like to play with greater groups of tanks/ flyers/ gimmicks. At all, I think that WH is well suited for different formats and experimentation.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Why not? It just encourages use of strategy, adaptation, not just leaning on power army list (which of course use strategy too). Its still same game.

How exactly do troops units require more strategy and adaptation than units from other parts of the FOC?

 Peregrine wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Why not? It just encourages use of strategy, adaptation, not just leaning on power army list (which of course use strategy too). Its still same game.

How exactly do troops units require more strategy and adaptation than units from other parts of the FOC?

By exactly what is says? Changing your perspective, in some armies changing units that bear certain function? It just forces you to reevaluate dispositions. "My FA squadrons made the punch...OK, cant have them in such strenght now, so I need to substitute them with other possible choices..." etc. Just forces player to leave old habits and try to find new way.

Its pretty easy logic, isnt it?

Oh, and I didnt say more strategy.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Changing your perspective, in some armies changing units that bear certain function?

Why is changing perspectives by saying "you're not allowed to play that army" a good thing? Shouldn't that change be driven by a desire to find new things because you actually enjoy them, not because you aren't allowed to play the army you've invested your time and effort into?

 Peregrine wrote:

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Changing your perspective, in some armies changing units that bear certain function?

Why is changing perspectives by saying "you're not allowed to play that army" a good thing? Shouldn't that change be driven by a desire to find new things because you actually enjoy them, not because you aren't allowed to play the army you've invested your time and effort into?

Maybe you could re-read my first post about different formats. We are talking, due to OP, about tournaments, arent we? Not everyday non-tournament games. I think its nice and fun to shuffle entry rules through year and see different army setups, classic rules included.

For the rest, again, re-read my first post, Im not fan of internet bickering "explain this...and this, explain, because I need to be in opposition!"

 UlrikDecado wrote:
We are talking, due to OP, about tournaments, arent we?

What does that have to do with anything? Being told "you're not allowed to use that army" isn't somehow more fun because it's in a tournament.

I think its nice and fun to shuffle entry rules through year and see different army setups, classic rules included.

And nobody is stopping you from doing that with your own lists. You just can't tell people that they aren't allowed to play unless they make a new army frequently enough for you.

 UlrikDecado wrote:
Why not? It just encourages use of strategy, adaptation, not just leaning on power army list (which of course use strategy too). Its still same game.

On the other hand, it would be nice to rotate "formats" for sometimes people would like to play with greater groups of tanks/ flyers/ gimmicks. At all, I think that WH is well suited for different formats and experimentation.

Problem is, it doesn't. It's not really going to balance anything out. All it will do is bring out more op things. Not every troop choice is evenly balanced. Having to deploy half your points as a tau army (as an example) is far more brutal than a SM force where those units already cost a ton anyways. Along with that, it bans a lot of lists that are balanced or even underpowered just to remove a few terrors (screamerstar riptide spam as examples) and what will it get you? New armies that will spam units that are cheese with this new restriction. There is no real solution and the only thing it does is feth over guys that have sub par troop choices (have fun deploying crummy CSM or tons of cultists which deprives you of creativity).

That being said, the TO may do what he pleases.

I think it's unfair to impose such a restriction on all factions. Personally, my primary CSM list includes 30 Noise Marines with multiple upgrades (Sonic Blasters, Blastmasters, Doom Siren, VotLW) interspersed across the squads, and even in the 1750 pts. variant of the list they are still only 770 pts. (44%). That's a lot of upgraded, elite Troops, but still not enough to meet the requirement.

Perhaps make Dedicated Transports count toward the limit? However, in my case that would be still 49% (lol) of the 1750 pts. army... Just lower the threshold, IMHO.

I like the idea. A bit more difficult to create a lists and prevents too much spamming (well, Eldar won't mind since their effective spamming is made of troops). A good fair play rule in friendly games and maybe smaller beginner tournaments.

But it simply sucks in bigger tournaments. Period. In competitive gameplay that is too restricting and kind of stupid.

Wow, that sounds like an amazingly bad idea. Don't half the 40k factions still only have like 2 or 3 troops in the army. I can't see anyone wanting to play a game where 925 points have to be spend on tactical marines.

I've just realised: what about Tyranids? My friend usually starts with barely any troops on the table to let his Tervigon spawn some Termagants during the game. Forcing him to take enough 'Gants and 'Gaunts to make up at least 50% of his list would seriously affect his playing style.

Let's see - at 1850 I normally run 2 Tervigons and 2 minimal gant squads. for a total of 520 points. I need another 405 points eh...

So another Tervigon/gant set (780) and change one of the gant squads into podding devgants (+10 models, devs, pod) gets me to 970. And I need another ~90 gants to do it. Yay.

I do not agree.

Necron troops can have flyers for dedicated transports. It won't stop flyer spam.

Eldars have Wave Serpents for their ONLY dedicated transport.
Run squads of 5 Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents and spam the thing.

It will not fix anything. It will shift the problem elsewhere.

A different solution that could be tried is coming up with a different set of scenarios or slightly modifying the existing ones to rely even more on objectives. You need a certain ratio of troops to perform well in objective games.

Another rule that can be slightly altered is that even if the other guy gets wiped you have until the actual end of the game to capture your objectives.

So if player A tables player B but player B got first blood and slay the warlord. Player A has linebreaker but no objectives. The tabled player stills wins 2-1.

This encourages playing the objective game rather than the wipeout game.

Take it or leave it. It's just a suggestion

This is very unbalanced for some armies. For example, my farsight enclave would be largely untouched as the core of the army is their troops.

I admit, the "solution" with Dedicated Transports was a random thought, not something I'd considered carefully before posting.

However, shifting the focus toward targets does sound nice. I know from my own experience how often my friends forget about the objectives, focus on killing my army and then by the end they realise they've got no Troops on objectives, and I hold two

This is something I have hoped GW would do for years. I look at the current Fantasy construction chart vs the FOC chart and weep. We have all seen the 2 5man tac squad all elite/heavy army. Armies should have more troops in them maybe not 50% I would go with fantasy here and say 40%.

Sounds like an awful, terrible idea.

The troops choice section isn't balanced well enough across the codices to make it work. Also it will barely affect some powerful armies while completely screwing armies that are already subpar or average that depend on their other sections.

I dont think the 40k FOC system and the percentage based fantasy system mix well.

If you want to do this in 40k without having a harsh impact on a lot of army setups i find it more reasonable to modify the FOC itself. For example make 3-4 Troop choices mandatory instead of 2 or have allies take at least 2 troops mandatory too.

This way getting allies is more of a tax and nobody has to buy useless upgrades just to fulfill the 50%. On the other hand you are almost forcing an eldar player to go serpent spam that way. So it does the opposite of what it is intended to do.

 gossipmeng wrote:
This is very unbalanced for some armies. For example, my farsight enclave would be largely untouched as the core of the army is their troops.

Look at regular tau on the other hand.

Even 6 fully squads of 12 fire warriors with a team-leader upgrade is merely 708.
So in order to meet the requirement, I am FORCED to take either masiv kroot blobs, or to run multiple devilfishes-the most overcosted transport of all times. (or throw down many pointless upgrades)

And you know what? unlike that marine army where you can get nifty gun options in troops, tau army can't bring ANY special weapons in troops, at all.
Unless you count the krootox, and that's just being mean.

Necron flying circus laughs at that plan.
At 1500pts you can have 8 flyers and still be spending 2/3 of your points on troops.

I don't like being told I have to play a certain way, so I'd be against forcing the 50% troops rule. Maybe I want to run a glass cannon army for funsies, and go all out with minimum troops. That may be my style, and shouldn't be told how to play.