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.

Until the next edition brings back the % army list system and does away with slots entirely, I'd rather see a comp that works similar to Astronomi-con's.

Basically you have a starting comp score of 20, and then work against a bunch of negative modifiers depending on how many duplicate/triplicate units you take, plus if you favour spending in one or two slots of the FOC.

NOTHING IS BANNED!!! (well, beyond the no-brainers like Lords of War and the larger fortifications as those simply don't gel with 1500pts games!)

Players can still bring their favourite 'uber cheesey crutch/power build, but go into the event with a minor handi-cap to their overall tournament score. (note: comp does not affect the results for Best General outside of a 2nd or 3rd level tie-breaker, so anyone who loves tournaments for sheer win/loss type of game play can still get their kicks)
As well, the comp score is used to match-up the 1st round pairings thus also ensuring you typically never get a massive mismatch in terms of list strength, something which even the swiss system doesn't entirely deal with. (as your first game is still left to the luck of the draw)

It's not perfect, but it does decently achieve the results of keeping the different levels of players, (ie: beerhammerers, fluff bunnies, power gamers, etc...), from having really bad experiences by ending up across the table from their polar opposite, especially during the opening round(s)

I like the idea behind the reducing points in the tourney based upon spamming units. I think that is how I would try and run my next tournament if I have time post baby.

It addresses the issue of wave serpent spam, four riptides/wraithknights, broadside spam, etc...

However I don't feel like it does anything against the dreaded 2+++ crazy army builds. Modifying it to a 2+/4+ on the re-roll seemed like a good idea, however it seemed like the two seer council builds at the LVO didn't have any problem with that. I believe both were supported by wave serpent spam, so already effecting that might be enough.

So if you create a self imposed penalty to spammed units, I think you just have to give it enough of an impact, that it prevents a power built list from winning the tourney unless it is the only army to go undefeated.

 seapheonix wrote:
I like the idea behind the reducing points in the tourney based upon spamming units. I think that is how I would try and run my next tournament if I have time post baby.

It addresses the issue of wave serpent spam, four riptides/wraithknights, broadside spam, etc...

However I don't feel like it does anything against the dreaded 2+++ crazy army builds. Modifying it to a 2+/4+ on the re-roll seemed like a good idea, however it seemed like the two seer council builds at the LVO didn't have any problem with that. I believe both were supported by wave serpent spam, so already effecting that might be enough.

So if you create a self imposed penalty to spammed units, I think you just have to give it enough of an impact, that it prevents a power built list from winning the tourney unless it is the only army to go undefeated.

My original proposal was an attempt to limit spam and death stars. By basically increasing the price of great dedicated transports you limit how many can be taken. By limiting the points spent on HQ the 2++ is also curbed. The council can't be as big and you can't spend as many points on the seers.

Like I said, I don't want to say that my proposal is the best in the land. It is simply an attempt to address the systemic problems that create unbalanced lists. If people go back and look at my list of problem rules/codex building, I am more than happy to entertain other ways of over coming them.

A local group is trying, just for fun, a comp system dubbed "There can be only one". We tried it the other day.

1500 points

NO DUPLICATE UNITS. At ALL.

I took:

chaos lord
cultists
noisemarines
chosen in rhino
forgefiend
obliterators
heldrake
mutilator (hey, I had 65 points left...)

He took:
farseer
jetbikes
wraiths in wave serpent
rangers
wraith knight
eldar flier (forget the name)
warwalkers



In this setup, sisters are allowed to get by with using only a single troops unit (since they have only one option) and any denial elite unit is also considered a scoring unit (basically anything on foot, not dreadnoughts)


Designing the list was VERY difficult - there are no redundancies. You can't take a tactical squad with meltas and a tactical squad with plasmas, because you cannot duplicate the codex entry at all. This also goes for slots that have multiple units in them, like Sanguinary Priests, Warlocks, or Heralds. Even though they're 1-4 as the same slot, you can't duplicate (so you could have a herald of Slaanesh and a herald of Khorne, but you can't have two Heralds of Slaanesh).

Because of the lack of redundancies, you really had to choose carefully - if your obliterator squad is your only anti-tank and it dies, you can't kill vehicles! It made certain units REALLY valuable on the field, and you depended on them. Target priority was key, and it really forced you to develop a strategy once the game started - for example, I was considering a list that took a helbrute, a forgefiend, a maulerfiend, a vindicator, and a landraider as a dedicated transport. All my firepower would go immediately towards the enemy's anti-tank weaponry, and though those units I mentioned aren't the most amazing units in my codex, if the enemy lost the ability to deal with them, they'd be out of luck.


I'm not in favor of making this "the new way of things", but it DID make for a VERY interesting game, and I'd like to run it in a tournament environment sometime. It still doesn't prevent screamerstar or some of the other "deathstars", but when the enemy can't double-up on some of the support units that usually go along with those units, suddenly they become the main target and don't last as long as you'd think they would.

This also limits scoring units on the field - most armies only have 2, maybe 3 different troops units. Chaos for example has cultists, marines, and then a cult troop IF you take a chaos lord. If you take a tzeentch sorcerer that also opens up 1k sons, but that's the only way. Marines have tac marines, scouts, and bikes if they take a biker HQ. Necrons would have to take a squad of warriors and a squad of immortals, and only one of them could go in a night scythe.



It's an interesting format, and one I think is fun to play around with.

 seapheonix wrote:
It addresses the issue of wave serpent spam, four riptides/wraithknights, broadside spam, etc...

It also punishes you for spamming bad units. The IG player who brought two units of rough riders is punished by the fact that they're less effective than a pair of Vendettas, and then is punished again by your comp system giving the same penalty as the guy who took the Vendettas. Instead of making ridiculous rules like this so that you can pretend to be "fair" just deal with the problem units directly. If four Riptides is too much to be balanced/fun then make Riptides 0-2, or even 0-1.

I play Sisters. I only have 1 Troop choice and 2 of Elites, Fast and, 3 Heavy choices. How do I not spam and get penalized? And the answer isn't then take 1 of each since then I'm penalized by having to play substandard/useless units.

 Peregrine wrote:

 seapheonix wrote:
It addresses the issue of wave serpent spam, four riptides/wraithknights, broadside spam, etc...

It also punishes you for spamming bad units. The IG player who brought two units of rough riders is punished by the fact that they're less effective than a pair of Vendettas, and then is punished again by your comp system giving the same penalty as the guy who took the Vendettas. Instead of making ridiculous rules like this so that you can pretend to be "fair" just deal with the problem units directly. If four Riptides is too much to be balanced/fun then make Riptides 0-2, or even 0-1.

In your comments regarding the Sweedish Comp system you pointed out the problem with straight banning. Who decides what stays and what goes? Do we trust their evaluations?

A % based system still allows you to take whatever units you want, it will just limit the expensive ones.

Moving to a fantasy style system where we have "rare" units would work too, however that would probably need to be enacted by GW and that's not likely.

So I wrote up a list forum using the op guide lines with one change Instead of even to transported units on the dedicated, I topped it at 25% t allows land raiders as transports and a couple of wave serpents, but it still limits to 438 points at a 1750 tourney.

bogalubov wrote:
In your comments regarding the Sweedish Comp system you pointed out the problem with straight banning.

No, that's not my problem with "Swedish" comp. It's a broken system because it bans too many things, not because it uses bans at all. It bans/punishes screamerstar/Riptide spam/etc, but then it also bans/punishes things that aren't a problem at all just because the designer thinks it's the "wrong" way to play the game.