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.

Hi guys! I'm after some advice on my tournament rulespack. It's in Scotland in the UK so while it like to see you all there, I understand it's a long way for most of you!

Before my main question below, here's a link to the rules pack in question:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7NqIiaN5EpAZUJtdm5mbTRVWEE/view?usp=docslist_api

The main points to consider in the pack are:

-No FW
-Imperial knights are unrestricted
-Gargantuan Monstrous creatures are restricted to 1 per army
-You cannot have both a super heavy and GMC in the same army

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on this, even if you aren't interested in the event.

Some folks have asked me about allowing multiple Gargantuan Monstrous creatures (currently restricted to 1 per army)in their army, when I have not restricted super Heavies in the same way. My personal opinion has always been that GMCs are far stronger than Super heavies, but I would prefer to play this based on what the community thinks. If you have an opinion on this, please respond below. I am very keen to hear thoughts and opinions on this. There's about a month before list submission still.

Thanks!

Liam

 liam0404 wrote:
-No FW

Terrible idea. Stop doing this.

-Imperial knights are unrestricted

Terrible idea. If other LoW are restricted to one per army and many armies lose access to their only (relevant) LoW options it's absolutely insane to allow a whole army of nothing but superheavies. If I'm not allowed to bring my Malcador I should not have to face a whole army of knights that are each far more powerful than my poor tank.

-Gargantuan Monstrous creatures are restricted to 1 per army
-You cannot have both a super heavy and GMC in the same army

This is a decent idea, but should also apply to high-end superheavies. You shouldn't be able to take a pair of Warhound titans, and even taking multiple Baneblade-class superheavies can be really annoying to deal with.

Thanks for the feedback! Just to elaborate on some of the decisions, I am trying to keep the pack as close to ETC standard as possible, which the above restrictions adhere to.

I would agree that a full army of super heavies is tough to deal with. I'm looking to avoid situations though where you see 3/4 stormsurges or 5 wraithknights. Both of those make a mockery of imperial knights.

 liam0404 wrote:
Thanks for the feedback! Just to elaborate on some of the decisions, I am trying to keep the pack as close to ETC standard as possible, which the above restrictions adhere to.

Then "ETC standard" is terrible rules. Don't use "but everyone else is doing it" as an excuse to use terrible rules, do it right and run a good tournament.

 Peregrine wrote:

Then "ETC standard" is terrible rules. Don't use "but everyone else is doing it" as an excuse to use terrible rules, do it right and run a good tournament.

The ETC ruleset is one of the most balanced set of rules at the moment. It utilises a fair set of maelstrom obtainable by most armies, it covers Killpoints and it also covers normal primary objectives. This allows almost every army to have a fighting chance, not just deatshtars (has to consider objectives) or MSU (has to consider easy KPs).

So for you to say it is terrible rules is pretty close minded. I for one think the ITC is one of the worst ruleset I have ever read (turn 2 to claim objectives is just beyond a joke), but I am still heading to LVO because there are parts of it which makes sense (some of the comp).

Banning forgeworld is a good way to start. A lot of the BS we see (Lynx, Tau'nar, New craftworld eldar formations) can be limited.

As for GMCs I agree 0-1 is fine, any more and it gets rediculous. However to balance this out, to stop deathstars having free reign, re rollable saves compaed to re roll no better than 4+ and invis to BS1 and WS1 is the balancing act.

Lets not forget about Tau and their units of GMCs. I would personally allow it. After playing with Tau, the stormsurge is no where near broken and a unit of them makes it even easier to kill due to the lack of anything else in the army, so who cares!

Thats my 2 $

KillswitchUK wrote:
Banning forgeworld is a good way to start. A lot of the BS we see (Lynx, Tau'nar, New craftworld eldar formations) can be limited.

No, it's an absolutely terrible place to start. FW rules are no worse than any other rules published by GW, and there are plenty of blatantly overpowered codex-only armies that are not fun to play against. Anyone who seriously advocates a blanket ban on FW rules has no clue about how to run a decent tournament and shouldn't be doing it.

I don't mind a bit of comp so long as it's logical. Different rulespacks can force you to be more inventive with your list.

I don't really see why you would restrict GMCs but not IKs personally. There is one oft seen GMC which is very undercosted (we all know the one) but I wouldn't tar all GMCs with the same brush.

Re FW, I wouldn't ban or restrict it based on it being overpowered because it isn't. Just like regular GW rules, you have broken stuff and crappy stuff. What I would enforce is that people actually bring their rules with them as a lot of FW hate can be put down to 'the fear of the unknown'. FW rules can be harder to obtain because the books are so expensive, but just make sure people have at least print outs to show their opponent.

Again it's mostly down to my opinion, but I feel that most armies would have an easier time killing 3 Imperial Knights than they would 3 wraithknights. I'm perhaps wrong on that count but i've played enough against the units in question to form that opinion.

Regarding FW, the main reason i've went for a blanket ban is again due to ETC standards (the Scottish ETC community will likely find this event a useful practice), but also due to rules availability. I largely have the ability to validate most lists after they have been submitted (or outsource those I can't). I don't have any FW materials with which to list check and ensure accuracy. I will perhaps look into this in the future.

Regarding ETC restrictions, keep in mind that while Codex: Imperial Knights Detachments can contain more than 1 superheavy, they still have to be of a different type. Also, it's allowed to have 1 SHV and 1 GC in the army.

I myself am a bit irritated that we once again have the special snowflake IKs, but it's what the majority of the teams voted for. One should keep in mind though that ETC is a team tournament, in which an IK army is a very specific tool. For a general singles tournament I would just restrict the number of GC/SHV to 1 per army and be done with it, I think it will make it easier and more enjoyable for the majority of participants. Also, giving a single army special privileges always rubs people the wrong way.
I don't agree that GCs are necessarily better than SHVs, it's really just the costing of the WK that screws everything up. Restricting them to 1 per army (or banning them outright) is an ok solution though, and simple to do.

Banning FW will probably scare off potential players. It's also a really bad move.

There is nothing wrong with using FW and it is still apart of GW itself. You are hindering players because you don't own the rulebooks yourself.

Edit: I take back my comment but, nice to see you cherry picking what army can take what while allowing others to do whatever they want.

 Stormwall wrote:
Banning FW will probably scare off potential players. It's also a really bad move.

There is nothing wrong with using FW and it is still apart of GW itself. You are hindering players because you don't own the rulebooks yourself.

Depends a bit on the country, around here FW is almost always not allowed for some reason. I started allowing it in our recent tournaments, but almost nobody took advantage of it anyway (and I know they own the models). Also, when allowing superheavies you still have to make a banlist for titans and those things just in case, because this will scare a lot more people off for sure.

 Stormwall wrote:
Banning FW will probably scare off potential players. It's also a really bad move.

There is nothing wrong with using FW and it is still apart of GW itself. You are hindering players because you don't own the rulebooks yourself.

I can agree that banning FW will probably put off some players, but you could also make the same argument for the other case. Some players may not want to go a to a tournament where they would be likely to face something from FW which is really horrible (like a Supremacy Armour for example, which is only 600 points and way undercosted). Also, you say that i'd be hindering players by not allowing FW. I'd also be hindering everyone who didnt take any FW units, as I'd have no mechanism for list checking and validation.

 Stormwall wrote:
Edit: I take back my comment but, nice to see you cherry picking what army can take what while allowing others to do whatever they want.

Not really sure what point you are trying to make here, but I am trying to have a discussion about potential restrictions to try and level the playing field for some armies which perhaps don't have access to such impressive toys (such as GMCs and SHVs).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Anyone who seriously advocates a blanket ban on FW rules has no clue about how to run a decent tournament and shouldn't be doing it.

I don't think this is a fair comment. I feel that i have explained the reasons for the army composition (i.e. ETC format + source availability), and this has no bearing on whether or not the tournament will be decent. This is the third year in a row this tournament will be run, and for the area of the UK we are in the attendance has always been above average. The event is always well ran, and feedback has always been positive (of logistical issues). The rulespack and composition of armies is an ever-evolving discussion, and this is something which I do regularly with attendees to try and feel the general opinion (hence this thread as well). If you feel no FW is a mistake then you're entitled to that opinion, but don't criticise the quality of the event, as this is something which you have no evidence to assess.

I like the ITC policy towards Super-heavies/Gargantuans:

All SH/GC's limited to 0-1 in the entire army with the exception of:

Imperial Knight armies (however, you can only run 1 detachment of them).

Tau Stormsurge (this was voted on by the public, though I see no problem with making him 0-1 as well)


Restrictions:

No Warhound Titan-class SH/GC. That means no Warhound, no Revenant, no Ta'unar, no Hierophant, no Daemonlords. (I actually feel that Daemonlords aren't so bad and that they should be allowed, except for probably An'ggrath.)

No Torrent Hellstorm templates.

No Massive Blasts (or larger) that also Ignore Cover.

 jy2 wrote:
I like the ITC policy towards Super-heavies/Gargantuans:

All SH/GC's limited to 0-1 in the entire army with the exception of:

Imperial Knight armies (however, you can only run 1 detachment of them).

Tau Stormsurge (this was voted on by the public, though I see no problem with making him 0-1 as well)


Restrictions:

No Warhound Titan-class SH/GC. That means no Warhound, no Revenant, no Ta'unar, no Hierophant, no Daemonlords. (I actually feel that Daemonlords aren't so bad and that they should be allowed, except for probably An'ggrath.)

No Torrent Hellstorm templates.

No Massive Blasts (or larger) that also Ignore Cover.

I quite like this suggestion. After each event I usually poll the players, and the subject of FW is always one that comes up (the opinion was close last year). It's something ill bring up again. I like the idea of allowing FW but restricting FW Super heavies and Gargantuans. That's something I hadn't considered.

FW is BS. Nobody wants it there.

For those that need a FW crutch, go and have a cry under your mom's skirts and have a cookie and a glass of milk and get over it.

 Caranthir987 wrote:
FW is BS. Nobody wants it there.

For those that need a FW crutch, go and have a cry under your mom's skirts and have a cookie and a glass of milk and get over it.

As a 30k player, I was gonna get mad, then I saw the ""

Oh gawd I just lold and face palmed at the same time !!!