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.

Posted this as a response in another thread, wanted to see how others felt about the idea:


A local group is trying, just for fun, a comp system dubbed "There can be only one".

1500 points

NO DUPLICATE UNITS. At ALL.

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 or other elite vehicles)


Designing a list is 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.



I'd like to encourage anyone who reads this to give this system a shot for a couple games, and please report your games here so I can see how it goes. My buddy and I tried it the other day, here's what we had:

I took:

chaos lord of slaanesh
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

He won, pretty handily, due to his wraith knight. At this points level and with few redundancies, I found myself completely unable to both kill it AND handle other threats. In a surprise move he had turboboosted his jetbikes right into the middle of my army, and I took the opportunity to charge it to take it out. Unfortunately it took up the firepower of my obliterators and forgefiend for two of my turns.

As a gimmick for a one off tournament or league, sure. It's not pretending to make things more balanced, or to fix problems, it's just trying to mix things up. But only as a gimmick tournament, not as an everyday thing.

I think putting an artificial limit on, say, 275 points in any one slot might help, too. Would help limit the Deathstars somewhat!

I'm not so sure. When I was messing with the points, I too thought about putting a lot of my points into a huge squad of 10 terminators. I was also going to make a 20 man squad of chaos marines and a 20 man squad of raptors, but I also realized that by doing so, I would end up with about 4 actions a turn - 4 units that can hurt things, and in many cases (marines, raptors) they were dependent on the same number of melta/plasmaguns to do damage as a 10-man squad would be. It was a big gamble, and while in this case I knew I would be facing a wraith knight, it's just a bad idea in any all-comers list. I worried what would happen if I failed a morale check or something.

This is a bad way of doing things because the game isn't even close to balanced around unique unit names. Some armies have two or more units that are functionally very similar but have different names (IG heavy support, for example), some armies have powerful single units while others depend on bringing two copies of the same unit, etc. It's going to be very frustrating when, say, the IG player gets to take a Basilisk squadron and a Manticore (two identical tanks except for their gun), while the Tau player can only have one Hammerhead because their two identical tanks except for their gun occupy the same codex entry.

 Spellbound wrote:
Designing a list is VERY difficult - there are no redundancies.

This is a very bad thing. It will inevitably produce one-sided games where your only anti-X option dies early and the rest of the game consists of removing models until you're finally tabled. And this isn't really something you can control, since lucky dice for either player can effectively end the game with a single shot no matter how great your strategy is.

This also limits scoring units on the field - most armies only have 2, maybe 3 different troops units.

This is also very bad. 40k is much more balanced when objectives are relevant and you have to take stuff that isn't great offensively so that you don't lose all of your scoring units. Limiting the number of troops choices you can take means severely limiting the relevance of those troops. If you have only 2-3 scoring units then they're unlikely to be alive at the end of the game so you might as well just bring the biggest guns and table your opponent as your only way to win. And since your opponent is in the same situation you've reduced the game to little more than target priority and rolling dice to see who kills the most stuff.

And this is also very bad because not all armies have an equal number of entries in the troops section. Marines can take three (tactical squad, scouts, bikes) and then combat squad them for six total, while Tau only have two relatively fragile ones. This isn't a problem when you aren't banning duplicate units because the Tau player just takes a couple squads of Kroot instead of a single tactical squad, but under your system the Tau player has pretty much no hope of holding any objectives.

I like the idea it makes things a lot of fun. The low troop problem is not really a problem at all. Just increase the size of the troop unit to max or protect them with a transport. The enemy won't have as much firepower as normal to deal with them and still protect their own troops.

I'd love this. Flyrant, hive guard, Tervigon, gants, shrikes, carnifexes, Biovores... Fill out the troops section for the rest of the points.

Edit: and I think you guys analyzing that lack of troops missed that denial elites are also scoring, according to the OP. That'd make a huge difference for many armies.

Sisters only have 1 Troop choice. Makes it kind of hard to put a legal army out there.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Sisters only have 1 Troop choice. Makes it kind of hard to put a legal army out there.

Gee, that's such an obvious issue I wonder why he didn't address that in the OP...
Oh. He did. Gotcha.

I don't think this helps at all.

You know, this doesn't limit Tau at all, right?

I can still run this at 1850:

FARSIGHT ENCLAVES:
Farsight
Ovesa
Riptide(Target Lock, SMS, HBC)
Crisis Team
Kroot
Broadsides

TAU ALLIES:
Buffcommander
Fire Warriors

Not a single duplicate, but still a solid Ovesastar. Anyways.... why restrict what players can bring? Just comp them later.

Lucarikx

We've run nearly this exact format for a tournament at my store before. We called it Highlander because it's snappier, but it was nearly identical. It was a lot of fun and encouraged some really interesting and creative list-building. We plan on running it again some time.

I like it! I'd play in such a tournament.

While he addressed the basic issue of troop choices I'm still severely limited in my options. Especially compared to most other codices. I have a total of 8 Non-HQ units to choose from and most people consider Penitent engines and Repentia poor choices at best. So unless I want my base army to, effectively, become an allied contingent I'm screwed.
I don't see this as a way to balance the game. There are too many differences between codices and selections for this to work. The squadron rule is a prime offender since it allows players to choose 3 of the same model but it's only 1 choice. As an example, if I wanted to fill my Heavy slots I would be limited to 1 Exorcist, 1 Retributor squad and 3 Penitent engines. An IG player could take 3 Russ variants, 3 Ordinance variants and still have room left over for 3 Hydra Flakk tanks.
Then there is the fact that some codices offer more choices in some slots than other codices. One codex may offer 5 elite choices while another only 3 and that doesn't take quality of choices into consideration.
So, while on the surface, this appear to be a fair solution it isn't really a solution at all.

I think I am definitely going to bring this up with my playgroup as we are always looking into wacky alternates to the normal game. You are correct, I would not want to see this as anything standard, but as a one-off wacky change, this seems cool.

 Lucarikx wrote:
I don't think this helps at all.

You know, this doesn't limit Tau at all, right?

I can still run this at 1850:

FARSIGHT ENCLAVES:
Farsight
Ovesa
Riptide(Target Lock, SMS, HBC)
Crisis Team
Kroot
Broadsides

TAU ALLIES:
Buffcommander
Fire Warriors

Not a single duplicate, but still a solid Ovesastar. Anyways.... why restrict what players can bring? Just comp them later.

Lucarikx

That's great. Now read the OP. I'll wait ...... Waiting ..... Waiting ...... Waiting. Did you read it yet? Cause you didn't when you snapped off e quick response above.

Rewrite your Ovessa list for 1500pts because that's what the OP said the tourney would be.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
I don't see this as a way to balance the game.

I don't think the OP intended this as a means to balance the game. It's just a possibly fun way to play a game or two, or a one-off tournament.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
While he addressed the basic issue of troop choices I'm still severely limited in my options. Especially compared to most other codices. I have a total of 8 Non-HQ units to choose from and most people consider Penitent engines and Repentia poor choices at best. So unless I want my base army to, effectively, become an allied contingent I'm screwed.
I don't see this as a way to balance the game. There are too many differences between codices and selections for this to work. The squadron rule is a prime offender since it allows players to choose 3 of the same model but it's only 1 choice. As an example, if I wanted to fill my Heavy slots I would be limited to 1 Exorcist, 1 Retributor squad and 3 Penitent engines. An IG player could take 3 Russ variants, 3 Ordinance variants and still have room left over for 3 Hydra Flakk tanks.
Then there is the fact that some codices offer more choices in some slots than other codices. One codex may offer 5 elite choices while another only 3 and that doesn't take quality of choices into consideration.
So, while on the surface, this appear to be a fair solution it isn't really a solution at all.

To be honest few people care about Sisters. You either need to get a secondary army to play or stop going to tourneys. I'm tired about sister players complaining the rules don't fit their army. If one army is left out, a marginal one with no hardcover codex, I'm ok with that. We should not hamstring 95% of the community because of one minor, fringe army list.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Lucarikx wrote:
I don't think this helps at all.

You know, this doesn't limit Tau at all, right?

I can still run this at 1850:

FARSIGHT ENCLAVES:
Farsight
Ovesa
Riptide(Target Lock, SMS, HBC)
Crisis Team
Kroot
Broadsides

TAU ALLIES:
Buffcommander
Fire Warriors

Not a single duplicate, but still a solid Ovesastar. Anyways.... why restrict what players can bring? Just comp them later.

Lucarikx

That's great. Now read the OP. I'll wait ...... Waiting ..... Waiting ...... Waiting. Did you read it yet? Cause you didn't when you snapped off e quick response above.

Rewrite your Ovessa list for 1500pts because that's what the OP said the tourney would be.

Sorry, that list is for 1500. I used it at a tourny 3 weeks ago.

I'm sorry if you don't care about sisters. However, we Sister players are part of the community. We are just as affected by rule changes as you. When someone wants to make a change in the basic structure of the game then we have the responsibility to state our position and protect our interests. If you don't agree with that position that's fine and you have the right to say so. But you don't have the right to say, "Sit down and shut up. You don't get a say in the matter."

The variations that I've seen on this format that addresses codices with few troop choices is that you're allowed to take 2 of the same unit in that instance.

I'd play it as a one-off. Maybe even as a regular tournament. Sounds fun!

 jy2 wrote:
I like it! I'd play in such a tournament.

Me too. Most of my armies already look like that....

rigeld2 wrote:
Edit: and I think you guys analyzing that lack of troops missed that denial elites are also scoring, according to the OP. That'd make a huge difference for many armies.

It sounds like the "elites are scoring" rule only applies to SoB, to compensate for only having one troops choice in their entire codex. If it's a general rule that's meant to apply to all armies then it does help, but it's a really badly written sentence.

Mite b cool

I think it would be a lot of fun.

Though id probably make it simple and say no force org. and do KP and relic mission so that it is a mad dash for the objective and or kill everything to mix it up.

Honestly I really dislike how this system effectively bans every single themed army out there for no damn reason at all... And by themed army, I mean things like:
Deathwing
Ravenwing
Death Company
Purifyers
Draigowing
Inquisitorial armies (ie: Coteaz being used without being a brainless mech/deathcult spam)
World Eaters
Death Guard
Typhus Zombie Host of Doooooom! (seriously?! but, but zombies are so cool!)
Thousand Sons
Emp's Children
Mono-Daemons of all flavours, but especially Tzeentch who requires their Heralds more than the others
Craftworld lists such as Saim Han or Alatioc
DE Wych Cult
Speed Freaks
Etc...

Why are these types of armies suddenly so obnoxious and needing to be hit with the nerf bat? Most of these are at best upper middle or middle of the road in terms of their competitiveness, while some are downright awful, (like pure Death Co.), but look amazingly cool and are a lot of fun to play with & against.

Meanwhile you're still allowing the worst of the worst as Screamerstar, Taudar/Eltau, Ovessastar, etc... are still fully playable.

Experiment 626 wrote:
Why are these types of armies suddenly so obnoxious and needing to be hit with the nerf bat? Most of these are at best upper middle or middle of the road in terms of their competitiveness, while some are downright awful, (like pure Death Co.), but look amazingly cool and are a lot of fun to play with & against.p

I think you may be misjudging the intent. Go back and reread the OP - there's no suggestion that this system is intended to address "obnoxious" armies or otherwise "nerf" things - it's a suggestion for an alternate way to construct armies for (presumably) one event. Might make for a nice change for some, won't appeal to others, but regardless - it's not being suggested as a "fix" for 40k balance or anything.

Meanwhile you're still allowing the worst of the worst as Screamerstar, Taudar/Eltau, Ovessastar, etc... are still fully playable.

Screamerstar is going to have a hard time with only a single Herald - odds of getting the right mix of powers goes way down (and even if you get them, the firepower available suffers dramatically as a result). And, as a bonus, seer council ceases to exist.

It sounds like a lot of fun, I'd certainly give it a go.

The highlander concept is awesome. I personally like it with allowing repeatable troops but not repeatable dedicated transports more but that's just me.

This seems like a fun concept that has been gaining steam. It started in the UK and has been spreading since, seems like a fun alternative way to play the game ATM.

CCS, Primaris Psyker, Choir, Ogyrns (They somehow sneak into this debacle), Vets, Bloated out platoon with lots of options, a couple chimeras, Vendetta, Leman Russ, and a Shadowsword. I can totally do this.