Switch Theme:

Troops Tournament Idea (Lookin for Feedback)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

Looking at running a fun little Tournament. Haven't gotten into Scenarios yet, but just looking for list building/restrictions at this time.

Decided to run between 1000-1500 points. The group has quite a few new players who have little more than a Combat Patrol/Starter box, so we're leaning more toward the 1k to get more players involved without the need to buy more than a box or two. The idea is to just have a day run event where we can get players familiar with the game, their armies, and more than 1 game on game night. The newer players are still struggling with learning the core concepts of the game and on League Nights, it still takes a few hours to play 1 game, which they often don't finish before closing time. Hopefully this will even get them motived to start painting.

HQ/Characters: Going to allow a 0-1 HQ choice. Group feels that 150 points is reasonable. Anything more opens it up to overly powerful models in, and anything less starts to restrict some of the more powerful armies. <Unique> characters won't be allowed to keep in line with the game not being focused around more Elite/Heavy units, etc. There is a strong case to be made for opening this up to <Characters> within the 150 points, dipping into elites so that armies like IG aren't screwed on limiting Orders. I'm not familiar enough with all the armies out there to see which armies can abuse this, but it could leave the door open.

Troops: This one was tricky. I'm including it simply because the group talked about it. In past editions, someone could spam min units in a setup like this, but the Missions/Scoring were the main drive to do that. The overly-simple solution is to just restrict everyone to a Patrol Detachment, but this could become a problem if we go higher than 1k. I'm leaning more toward a 1-5 Troops selection limit, but I'm open to thoughts, since we're just at the planning stage.

Dedicated Transports: Initially I thought to limit Dedicated Transports to a 0-1 choice. This is fine at the 1k level. Can't think of many Dedicated Transports that would break the game while still allowing certain transport dependant, like Aeldari, some options. The issue wasn't directed at which transports would break the game, but the inability of certain armies to have access to deal with vehicles in general. If we go higher in points, then a 0-2 might be an option, but we don't want to open the door for winning to rely on transports to do the lifting.

Scenarios: Can't find my 6th ed book, but we'd be looking for ideas on simple scenarios so that players can play the game without worrying too much about Objectives. So far the 5th ed. ones look fine for this but I'm supposed to have a member of the group bringing one so we can look at em.

That's the train of thought for now. Looking to get it these sorted out, so we can lockdown a date.
TIA

Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

Have you thought about using the Open War mission cards? Here's a link to the pack for an event run yesterday by my local club, with similar aims.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11ahySRvwO7ZK6TGPGqZuOzu9psdgo07FqVPrlCQYWXw/edit

To get as many players as possible, it may be a good idea to have no restrictions on lists. Just a thought.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/16 10:31:44


My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

 PaddyMick wrote:
Have you thought about using the Open War mission cards? Here's a link to the pack for an event run yesterday by my local club, with similar aims.


Thank You for that link, I'll have a look at that pack when I get some free time.

The shortest answer is we're not going to require players to bring their own 'Open War' Decks for a game. The temptation to not play with a full deck would also be there. Not that anyone WOULD do this for an event like this, but there would be doubt since prize support will be involved. Since this is a 1-off event, there isn't much of a point for me to purchase them for use in the event (or expect the FLGS to), then box em back up.

Most of us are currently playing Open War right now while we waiting for an alternative to 'Matched Play'. Twists seem to have more of an effect in Open War games the lower the points go. This would be even more exaggerated when restricting Lists to Troops since their roles within and army don't vary too much within each army. The potential for a twist to swing a game in one players favor makes it not the best option. The solution to that would be to review which Twists players should remove before generating one for the game. Alternatively, we could effectively 'create' each mission from the pack after coming to a group consensus of which Twists should be removed. The Sudden Death and most likely the Ruse cards wouldn't even be used.

With the 5th and 6th ed missions, we could simply copy them and hand them out to players. The 5th ed ones would work fine in this format, but they are a bit bland. I remember the 6th ed. ones being an improved version of the 5th ones. If I can't get my hands on the 6th ed book, then the 5th will work just fine IMO.

 PaddyMick wrote:
To get as many players as possible, it may be a good idea to have no restrictions on lists. Just a thought.
The idea is to approach it from the angle of 'What do players already have'. The experienced players all have collections large enough to do a 1-1.5k list with just troops already. Quite a few of our newer players got a 'Combat Patrol' box for Xmas, half of them come with a Dedicated Transport. If they don't have the Troops choices to fill out 1k, it makes it an easier purchase to sell them on getting more Troops boxes as they build up toward their Battalion Detachment. It also cuts out players just picking the Meta lists.

We ran a 1500 point tourney last year with 'Matched Play' restrictions with predictable results. So we want to avoid that. It's the Veteran players that are On-board with the 1 HQ/Troops only idea in an effort to mix it up, instead of just taking a list with their own auto-includes for whatever points value they're given. The only concerns they brought up are the ones I mentioned above, like AM not having access to enough Order Issuers, or Transport Dependant armies not having ANY Transports avail. While we also want to avoid things like Morty, or a CTan showing up with a handful of dudes, or even Transport spam lists, etc.


Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

Cool, sounds like you are giving it a lot of thought. Take a look at this vid, where arbitorian has written in some basic restrictions for casual open play, may give you some more ideas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf8LN1RQM1E&t=8s

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







The headache for trying to go Troops-only is that what does and doesn't go in that slot gets distributed pretty randomly these days. If you look at Kataphron in a vaccum based only on what they're armed with and how they function you'd probably call them an Elites or Heavy Support unit, but they're Troops purely because Mechanicus and Skitarii were separate books for no good reason in 7th and they needed a non-Skitarii Troops unit for the Mechanicum. Similarly if you looked at Ogryn alongside Custodians there's no good reason for Custodians to be Troops and Ogryn not to be.

If you want to try and restrict big chunky things I think you'd have better luck putting a points cap per unit on armies in general rather than restricting slots.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

 AnomanderRake wrote:
If you want to try and restrict big chunky things I think you'd have better luck putting a points cap per unit on armies in general rather than restricting slots.
Good Point on the Kataphrons, similar to a decked out Wych character in a Venom is also possible under the proposed restrictions. The Custodes/Ogre thing doesn't make any sense, but this same problem exists in 'Matched Play' with the rule of 3 limiting the Ogryn to 3.

The point restriction is something we've discussed as well. The issue we've noticed with 9th in general is that whatever formula they use to determine a unit's points is all screwed up because the core rules changes. So this solution doesn't really work. We're not opposed to it, but we had a hard time finding a 'Global' number that works across the board for all armies. It was easy for the group to find that number for HQ, we simply looked at the top HQ choices, their cost, and went from there. Not as easy to do with Troops since there isn't much out there. Troops also fill a different role when there are Heavy Lifters to support, instead of relying on Troops to do the work.

We also looked at taking an AOS approach to it by having players just bring the Minimum size, and 'Reinforcement' of 1-2 units to double minimum size should the player wish. It doesn't quite translate as well into 40k.

Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

A better idea may be to have a simple limit and have someone approve all list.

If you say your army must be 1 Patrol or Battalion with no named characters and then have someone tell the large collection players they no you can't bring two Greater Daemons in your Chaos Daemons list you will get better balance they trying to tack on a large number of restrictions that fail to catch something or leaves someone hamstrung because an Company Commander and a Keeper of Secrets are radically different power levels of HQs.

Same thing is true about limited Dedicated Transports. There is a world of difference between a Rhino and a Wave Serpent, but limiting DTs to 1 per army while not limiting Land Raiders (Heavy Support not Dedicated Transport) doesn't really do what you want.

Basically, if you are looking for a casual power game, think less about rules restrictions and more about list optimization limits. You're more likely to get what you want if you just tell a player their list is too hard for the tournament than to allow them to build an OP list based on a bunch of arbitrary restrictions.
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Players using armies with crap/mediocre troops won't be interested at all, simple.

If you like this kind of concept I suggest using lists based on infantries only, rather than troops only. With patrol detachment as the only detachment that can be selected.

There's a lot of troops that are equal to many elites or even heavy support. Give players the freedom to choose their favorite infantries and the tournament will be much more appealing.

 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

@alextroy

I'm confused by your response. The simple idea was this:

0-1 HQ (~150 pts)
Any number of Troops

Nothing else would be allowed.

We started with this idea, then built on top of that. The HQ/Character, and Dedicated Transports were the two big ones that the group felt needed to be addressed, as mentioned above.

To clarify, there will be no Elites, Heavy, Fast, Lord of War, or Fortifications in this event. There wouldn't be any Land Raiders, Repulsors etc. The HQ points restriction keeps the ridiculous HQs, like Greater Demons and Tank Commanders out.





Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Just troops and one HQ seems rather boring. If you are going to limit that much, why not go at a lower power level like a 500 point Combat Patrol?

And do you realize just how many troops some armies need to fill in a 1000 point list? A Maxed out Adepta Sororitas Battle Sister Squad is 160 Points. A maxed out Canoness is 70 Points. So that means the list will be over 5 10-model Battle Sisters squads. Do your players even have this volume of troops models to field?
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

Also extremely unblanced, not just boring. The main goal of tournaments organizers who enforce house rules should be achieving more balance, not less than what we get by using the actual rules.

Not everyone is a SM, Necron, Drukhari, Harlequin or Custodes player who can field pretty powerful troop squads. Even those players would probably not be very attracted by using just troops and a single HQ at 1000 points games.

Orks woud have to field a hundred of models and no real choices to make.

 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran



Canada

I don't think that your planned format is all that "beginner friendly." You talk about trying to make it easy for a new player with a Start Collecting box, but all the Combat Patrols boxes would be invalid with your "Troops Only" format. The various Space Marine ones have Inceptors, Aggressors, Repemptors, Reivers etc. My scan of the other boxes for other factions shows a similar trend.

My group has six tourneys a year, with one focused on being "beginner friendly." That one is set at 1000 points. There is no Forge World and players are encouraged to avoiding over-powering their lists. The TO suggests that players worried if their list is over-powered can send it to him for review. He reserves the right to send a list packing if he deems that it breaks the spirit of the tourney. This format seems to work. We still used the Matched Play GT 2021 Mission Pack for Incursion level for the individual games.

You could put other restrictions on your tourney to keep it "beginner friendly" such as a max Power Level/Points for a unit, no FW, no unique characters etc.

Good luck with your event!



All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in gb
[DCM]
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot





Leicester, UK

I reckon the best way to make it beginner friendly and make sure everyone has fun is to not give any prizes for winning games. Seriously - just give trophies for best painted, sportsmanship, and most fluffy army. Nobody gets to be 'that guy' 'cos you can't win by winning. Everybody is 'this guy'.

Spoiler:

My painting and modeling blog:

PaddyMick's Chopshop: Converted 40K Vehicles

 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Biloxi, MS USA

 alextroy wrote:
Just troops and one HQ seems rather boring. If you are going to limit that much, why not go at a lower power level like a 500 point Combat Patrol?

And do you realize just how many troops some armies need to fill in a 1000 point list? A Maxed out Adepta Sororitas Battle Sister Squad is 160 Points. A maxed out Canoness is 70 Points. So that means the list will be over 5 10-model Battle Sisters squads. Do your players even have this volume of troops models to field?


This is my concern, especially if it's for newer players. Even if you're aiming to try and get your group to play casually, no one(bar armies with exceedingly expensive units or players specifically building something like a Battle Company) is going to be fielding ~900 points in Troops choices once they expand to bigger games. It's very new player unfriendly to basically force them to buy a lot of stuff they won't use past this event. The kind of format you're suggesting lends itself to 500 points, not 1000+.

I'd suggest if you want a restricted event, do 1000 points, Highlander Rules(Troops and Dedicated Transports excluded), single Patrol Detachment, no units over 200 points. Gives the feel you're looking for and is much more new player friendly since it gives them a bit more freedom of army building choice.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/17 20:40:26


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

Yeah, Imperial Guard restricted to Troops only is way different than Space Marines and Nids, for example. If the IG player is a gear head, they aren't necessarily going to be able to field even 1000 points.

I am not poo-pooing the idea, but on the surface, it doesn't work out the same for everyone. What about infantry only? That would open up heavy weapons teams for IG as an example. Good luck!

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

 alextroy wrote:
Just troops and one HQ seems rather boring. If you are going to limit that much, why not go at a lower power level like a 500 point Combat Patrol?
We've done the Combat Patrol event already at the start of 9th. We did toss around the idea of running it again now that more armies have had their Dex updated, but we'd still lack an effective mission to run the event.

 alextroy wrote:
And do you realize just how many troops some armies need to fill in a 1000 point list? A Maxed out Adepta Sororitas Battle Sister Squad is 160 Points.
We didn't really discuss limiting the Troops like we did the HQ. 1k felt like a simple starting spot simply because your avg. Poster Boy Marine unit comes in around 200-250 pts. So 3 of those and an HQ leaves enough points for another Troops or a Dedicated Transport. We're aware that some armies, like Sisters/Nids will be able to field larger numbers. Others are still limited, like Custodes, for example.

We also built around the idea of the newer players building toward their Battalion Detachements, where you need to have 3 Troops anyways. By limiting the event to Troops, they are going to learn how to use them and what they can do, instead of just sitting on the objectives while the workhorses do the work, while simultaneously having seeing the Veterans perform without their star players. The Veterans have been positive on doing this, so we worked out a rough idea, then I brought it here.

 Blackie wrote:
Also extremely unblanced, not just boring. The main goal of tournaments organizers who enforce house rules should be achieving more balance, not less than what we get by using the actual rules.
There are two issues with this statement. The main one being that if the game isn't balanced at the Troop level, then how is opening it up to the other units going to address this. Second, if the main goal of TO's with house rules is to force balance, then why does 'Matched Play' exist?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/18 16:54:54


Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

One of the most ironclad rules of 40k since at least 3rd edition is that virtual all attempts to manage army composition will just benefit the best/deepest codices. So restricting games to just troops and a single HQ simply make armies with strong troops the best.

For beginners, I would start with a smaller game. 1000 points is enough to be a real game, but I would maybe simplify the missions so they reward tactical play but don't require choosing secondary's and the like. I've got nothing against Highlander (all non troops are 0-1 choices), I also like the idea of only allowing a single combat patrol detachment.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

 Akar wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
And do you realize just how many troops some armies need to fill in a 1000 point list? A Maxed out Adepta Sororitas Battle Sister Squad is 160 Points.
We didn't really discuss limiting the Troops like we did the HQ. 1k felt like a simple starting spot simply because your avg. Poster Boy Marine unit comes in around 200-250 pts. So 3 of those and an HQ leaves enough points for another Troops or a Dedicated Transport. We're aware that some armies, like Sisters/Nids will be able to field larger numbers. Others are still limited, like Custodes, for example.
I think you missed my point. I have well over a 2000 point Sisters of Battle Army. I could not field a 1000 point Troops army with only a Canoness as HQ. I simply don't have that many Battle Sisters models. I would suspect many players of armies were Troops models are less than 20 points each would be in the same place.
   
Made in us
Discriminating Deathmark Assassin




Out of my Mind

 Polonius wrote:
One of the most ironclad rules of 40k since at least 3rd edition is that virtual all attempts to manage army composition will just benefit the best/deepest codices. So restricting games to just troops and a single HQ simply make armies with strong troops the best.
The SAME ironclad rule applies when you open up the options, so I don't understand the difference. Nothing has been done in 9th to make this any more or less effective.

 alextroy wrote:
I think you missed my point. I have well over a 2000 point Sisters of Battle Army. I could not field a 1000 point Troops army with only a Canoness as HQ. I simply don't have that many Battle Sisters models. I would suspect many players of armies were Troops models are less than 20 points each would be in the same place.
I didn't miss the point. You've invested more into non-troop options, which is something that is common when building a full army from the ground up. Most of my Veteran Players, myself included, can field 1.5k+ in JUST troops.

We're just feeling it out for now, and I'm just looking for things to take to the group this week to discuss. So in order to keep the 'Troops' concept, the solution would then be to lower the points? Would 750 be more appropriate? I know we want to do more than 500 because of the Combat Patrol Tournament. What armies would be hindered by dropping it to 750?

The issues that this particular group is having has more to do with the Core rules, and not the army rules. Players spend as much time looking up the rules to figure the game out as much as they do shuffling through the Datasheets. Both sides are guilty of this still since opposing players want to see the datasheets of units they're unfamiliar with. Restricting it to Troops will remove the time spent looking/sharing datasheets so they can focus on the rules. That's the idea anyways.

As for the missions, I'm hoping to have the 6th ed rulebook this week to review them and make a decision later. There are a TON of good ideas in the 'Dirty Casual' rules that I'm going to run by the group. As much as I like the ruleset he's devised, it seems to be based off of removing rules from 'Matched Play' to make it playable. Which is problematic, because 'Matched Play' is built on removing 40k to make it more playable. Restricting Stratagems is one that appeals to me, but I also like the idea of not having 'Doctrines' either.

Thank you for your input though. I honestly appreciate you taking the time to read and understand the objectives.

Current Armies
Waiting for 40k to come back in the next edition.

 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

If you want to concentrate on the Core Rules, I would suggest a modest point level game with most of the layers stripped out. So say:

  • List size 750 points
  • One Detachment - Patrol or Battalion
  • No Subfaction Traits
  • No Army purity traits - Power From Pain, Space Marine Doctrines, Act of Faith, etc.
  • No Stratagems
  • No units worth more than 200 points (or even 150 points)
  • 5 Objectives - First is dead center of the battlefield. Players then alternate placing on Objective in their deployment zone and then one in their opponent's side of the board. All objectives must be 6" from the board edge and 9" from other objectives. Score one VP for each objective you control at the beginning of your Command Phase starting Turn 2, except the second player scores at the end of Turn 5 instead of during their Command Phase.

  • This keeps out the worst of the units and allows for a normal game without some of the complicating rules.
       
    Made in it
    Waaagh! Ork Warboss




    Italy

     Akar wrote:

    There are two issues with this statement. The main one being that if the game isn't balanced at the Troop level, then how is opening it up to the other units going to address this. Second, if the main goal of TO's with house rules is to force balance, then why does 'Matched Play' exist?


    Because not all troops perform in the same way. Some are as powerful as elites, others are just cheap fillers. Playing an army with only cheap chaff is boring, and at 1000 points it's tons of cheap chaff. Orks for example would have to take 90 boyz (810 points) + an HQ as minimum number of models, even more if some are cheaper gretchins.

    Matched play exist to help getting a more balanced game. It's the standard for competitive gaming. Then TOs might add a few house rules to run their events as smooth as possible: time limitations for example are house rules that sometimes are necessary otherwise the tournament wouldn't end in a day. Requiring full painted models is another common house rule, etc...

    If the goal is to avoid or limit cheese, 1000 points with mandatory patrol detachment and only infantries is definitely much more balanced and interesting than 0-1 HQs and unlimited troops. Only troops could work if you all run elite factions: SM, GK, necrons, harlequins, custodes, and something chaos. AM, drukhari, craftworlds, orks, sisters, tyranids (unless someone can spam warriors) would all be unplayable.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/19 07:42:38


     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut






    Springfield, VA

    I think the idea of a beginner friendly using fairly basic items is good.

    Not sure HQ + Only Troops is the way to do it though.

    I know as a Guard player, I'd both be bored to tears and also playing one of their strongest 9th edition lists.

    I'd also need damn near 150 infantry (Assuming some upgrades to make the basic squad cost 65 points) plus my Company Commander at 1000 points.

    1000 point guard lists typically bring 30-50 infantry (much more reasonable) and then fill out the points with other things (a couple russes, a commissar, whatever)

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/19 15:17:03


     
       
    Made in us
    Decrepit Dakkanaut





    Biloxi, MS USA

     Akar wrote:
    You've invested more into non-troop options, which is something that is common when building a full army from the ground up. Most of my Veteran Players, myself included, can field 1.5k+ in JUST troops.



    Sure, so can I. Hell, I can field anywhere between 4-6K in Troops choices alone for Chaos if I really counted. Doesn't mean I'd ever want to field an army of just HQ + Troops. I know how that goes, I did it for a laugh for an event in 3rd Ed. Oh, and basically you did it in the 3.5 Dex if you played Thousand Sons. Those games aren't as fun as they sound.

    Also, the problem with the statement "Most of my Veteran Players" is that you're bringing this up with a stated attempt of growing the community. You shouldn't be concerned with what your Veteran Players can do, but what will help the newest players and ultimately, making them invest in a lot of units they won't use in their "regular" armies once they build them up isn't really helping them, even if you're trying to concentrate on basics.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/19 20:08:51


    You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
    Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
    Hallowed is the All Pie
    The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
       
    Made in us
    Stinky Spore




    In denial

    Limiting army lists to troops won't encourage new players, or any player, to paint.
    Not everyone plays Marines (maybe your players do).
    You mentioned that new players have bought Combat Patrol boxes, and now they can't field their new toys? How is that encouraging? Are you looking for simplicity, or balance? Your proposal achieves neither.
    Consider this:
    1K, single Combat Patrol detachment, final VP total is multiplied by percentage of troops in list (ex. An army that is 50% troops scores half VPs). This will encourage a focus on troops without limiting flexibility.
       
    Made in de
    Longtime Dakkanaut



    Bamberg / Erlangen

    At the core your problem really is the time it takes for your players to play the game.

    Others already gave suggestions on how to approach it from a list building POV.

    The last post from alextroy is good for this.

    What you should look into is the free software Battlescribe.

    Your players should use it to build lists and print them out. This way you have all of your few datasheets handy with all the respective rules.

       
    Made in gb
    Regular Dakkanaut




    I think that asking the players who will be involved would be the best staying point. As much as I like that you're asking for ideas and fostering a debate, we likely won't be the ones who's opinion matters.

    The other thing I would say is if this is really to get the new players to learn the rules and play a bit more consistently and quickly, have you asked them what they think is slowing then down or finding difficult?

    Finally I'll just add that I wouldn't find it useful or encouraging to building a cool army if somebody said I should start with 1500 points of necron or admech troops. There no way any reasonable 2000 point army (which a lot of people will be building toward) will include that many. The new players in your group may also find it onerous.

    This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/02/06 22:40:50


     
       
     
    Forum Index » Tournament and Local Gaming Discussion
    Go to: