PDA

View Full Version : 1500pt tournament restrictions?



big squig
29-07-2015, 01:04
I want to host a 1500 point tournament, but being that that's sort of a small points value by today's standards, I was wondering what force restrictions I should include.

Lords of War? Allies? Banned formations?

any thoughts?

wyvirn
29-07-2015, 16:38
No Lords of War over 25% of army composition , or 375 points. This means a single Wraithknight, or knight Titan tops.

Because a single, large superheavy costing 2/3 of your points, like a revenant, tend to skew the game.

skorczeny
29-07-2015, 17:00
Personally, for a 1500 tournament, I would go with...
- Army must be composed of a single CAD only
- No LOW
- No allies
- No formations
- Troops must make up at least 30% of the army

But then again nobody likes these kinds of restrictions because they seem arbitrary and capricious, designed by some random person to penalize people who play the game in a way they don't like.

This is exactly why GW should officially support multiple formats with which to play WH40k. It would be so much easier to setup not just one game, but multiple games with multiple people quickly and easily.

jeffersonian000
29-07-2015, 19:24
I'm for no restrictions beyond WYSIWYG and all models must be painted to a minimal table standard.

SJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lord Damocles
29-07-2015, 20:17
I'm for no restrictions beyond WYSIWYG and all models must be painted to a minimal table standard.
This would be my thought too - possibly with the single restriction of no Forgeworld rules (just because they're less accessible to the majority of players).



- Army must be composed of a single CAD only
Sucks to play and army which can't use a CAD then.

skorczeny
29-07-2015, 20:32
I'm for no restrictions beyond WYSIWYG and all models must be painted to a minimal table standard.

Does 7th edition work so well out of the box that there are no reason to impose restrictions on army composition for a 1500 pt army? I don't think so. But maybe it doesn't need to for a tournament.


Sucks to play and army which can't use a CAD then.

Agreed.

Snake Tortoise
29-07-2015, 21:29
Personally, for a 1500 tournament, I would go with...
- Army must be composed of a single CAD only
- No LOW
- No allies
- No formations
- Troops must make up at least 30% of the army

But then again nobody likes these kinds of restrictions because they seem arbitrary and capricious, designed by some random person to penalize people who play the game in a way they don't like.

This is exactly why GW should officially support multiple formats with which to play WH40k. It would be so much easier to setup not just one game, but multiple games with multiple people quickly and easily.

I like that format. The only thing I'm not sure about is the troops thing, maybe just say minimum of 200 points troops? It stops people going super cheap on troops (like two MSU cultist squads, or two units of ripper swarms etc.) without forcing people to field lots more troops than they want. Some might not even have 450 points of troops!

The single CAD thing could be bended for stuff like skitarii who don't have any HQs, but let people get in touch beforehand for that sort of thing

Pure imperial knight players might not like it but it's pretty clear most people don't want to play against those kind of lists

My nids would have the drop the endless swarm formation to play in this but it wouldn't bother me at all, I'd consider it a fair trade off to get to play in a more classic 40k event like this

jeffersonian000
29-07-2015, 22:00
7th as it currently stands, when using correct terrain and Maelstrom, is internally balanced. You can run unbound list without issues given the correct terrain and changing objectives. Armies that excel at camping are forced to move, while armies that need to move are forced to occasionally sit tight. Superheavies are mitigated, Flyers are mitigated, even Alpha Strikes and Deathstars are mitigated.

Yes, 7th favors MSU, and yes, 7th favors formations. Thankfully, neither is mutually exclusive to the other.

SJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sturguard
30-07-2015, 00:23
I dont think 7th favors formations. Not all the codexes really have competitive formations, certainly none are in the class of Eldar, Necron, Space Marine or Dark Angels.

People only take formations that give them a disproportionate advantage compared to the drawbacks- so getting free rules for next to nothing. Heck, 5th edition could favor free rules and so could 3rd. There is nothing about the 7th edition rules that make formations unique or balanced. All allowing formations will do is restrict the types of armies you will see (this will be a self imposed restriction by the players trying to give themselves a competitive advantage).

Lord Damocles
30-07-2015, 09:50
All allowing formations will do is restrict the types of armies you will see (this will be a self imposed restriction by the players trying to give themselves a competitive advantage).
Even without formations, some armies are simply better than others - so you're more likely to see those anyway - as evidenced by all previous editions which lacked formations, but still had go-to lists/races for more competetive play.

Chevron_Locked
30-07-2015, 11:54
I dont think 7th favors formations. Not all the codexes really have competitive formations, certainly none are in the class of Eldar, Necron, Space Marine or Dark Angels.

I dunno, the Aspect Host formation would be my first choice for a tourney- BS5 reapers, dragons and spiders? Also fearless?

Back on topic, I think its important to provide restrictions that don't turn away all the varieties of gamer, as has been said maelstrom does mitigate many strengths and forces the players to concentrate on more than blasting the ******* out each other. I agree with points limit and wysiwyg- its how its done at my local hobby centre and keeps things simple :)