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.

In an effort to find creative ways of improving balance in organized play, I was kicking around the following idea. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.


The Hammer Drop Rule for Tournament Play

Using this rule, each player is required to bring a standard 1500 point list. Additionally, they must bring a 250 point "hammer" list. The hammer list must fit into the same FOC as the base list, so if a player fills all of his heavy support slots in the base list, his hammer list cannot have any heavy support choices. The hammer list must consist of entirely separate units from the base list. You cant use the hammer list to beef up one or more units in the base list.

At the beginning of the event, each player is given a token with their name on it to represent the use of their hammer. In the event that they elect to employ their hammer in a particular game, they must give this token to their opponent. Players will collect these tokens throughout the event as they get "hammered".

The hammer list represents addNitional forces that a player can bring to bear in only one match in the event. Once it is used, it cannot be used a second time. When the hammer "drops" the player using it gets to field his 250 point "hammer" in addition to the base 1500 point list.

At the beginning of each round, after examining the opponent's army list, the participants in each match secretly determine whether or not they wish to "drop the hammer" in that game if they have not previously expended it. The players' decisions are revealed simultaneously. If only one player elects to use his hammer, his opponent immediately has the option of doing so as well if he has not previously expended it. However, if neither player employs their hammer, the decision cannot be changed and neither player can use it in that game.

At the end of the event, the number of hammer tokens a player has collected (including his own if it was not expended) could be used as a tie breaker where multiple players have the same record.

Sounds like a fun idea not sure if it is going to catch on in the tournament scene

How does that improve balance, though?

An army with a very good codex would still have a very good codex - and it's 'hammer' would still be 'very good'.

The problem of balance in tournaments is surely one of Codex balance - this doesn't solve that at all...

ArbitorIan wrote:How does that improve balance, though?

An army with a very good codex would still have a very good codex - and it's 'hammer' would still be 'very good'.

Yes, but it can only be used one time. Truly OP lists will probably be the subject of multiple hammers, meaning that the player who brings what is perceived to be an OP list will be at a points disadvantage in more than one game because more than one opponent will choose to expend their hammer on him.

ArbitorIan wrote:The problem of balance in tournaments is surely one of Codex balance - this doesn't solve that at all...

I agree about the root cause being codex balance, but a handicapping system like this may be easier to swallow than wholesale comp systems or codex limitations.

Furthermore, the meta in a system like this would incentivize players to bring lists that will not be perceived as OP, and thus less worthy of being "hammered". This would seem to positively impact overall balance. Beardy lists are hammer magnets., thus players would tend to avoid bringing them.

If you want to solve balance the most direct route is to give different points limits for different armies. say

1650 for Grey Knights
1650 for Space Wolves
1700 for IG
1700 for Dark Eldar
1800 for Tyranids
1750 for everyone else

Lotus wrote:If you want to solve balance the most direct route is to give different points limits for different armies. say

1650 for Grey Knights
1650 for Space Wolves
1700 for IG
1700 for Dark Eldar
1800 for Tyranids
1750 for everyone else

I see your point, but I tend to prefer systems that incentivize players to bring a balanced list rather than explicitly making them. Also, if arbitrary points limits are imposed, wouldn't that just encourage the hard list players to min max and exploit undercosted units even more?

Except 'nids aren't lonely in bottom brackets. the 1800pt mark should also include Sisters, Tau, and possible demons and Chaos marines.

Okay, point conceded. But I still think that changing point limits per codex is the most direct and fairest way for TOs to handle balance.