PDA

View Full Version : How would you balance tournaments?



alphastealer
04-09-2008, 09:58
Hi,

Many if us enjoy playing in tourneys. It is fun, competitive and a great way to meet new people and play against people you might not normally see.

My biggest gripe with tourneys is the cheesy imbalance of certain army builds, and I wonder if we could throw around a few ideas on how to correct the imbalance and allow a relatively equal opportunity for each army to be competitive without imposing too many restrictions.

The idea behind this is still to have diverse army builds at the tourney but to just cut out the guy who has built the most broken list he can think of.

While winning isn't everything, it is nice to know you have a fair chance, especially when there are great prizes up for grabs.

Here are some of the restrictions I would put in place for tourneys. Se ewhat you think and what you would add/change...etc.

For the standard 1500pt tourney I would like to see the following as an

example:

Chaos

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:
1) Lash of submission
2) Obliterators
3) Daemon prince

Eldar

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:
1) Wraithlord
2) Harlequines
3) Rangers

Tyranids

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Hive Tyrant
2) Elite carnifex

Space Marines

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Land Raider

Necrons

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Monolith

I don't know of any other pressing issues in the other armies or what others experience as being broken, where they would suggest a reasonable restriction.

Remember the idea here is not to box players into all taking the same kind of configuration, it is only to remove the known (really abused combinations).

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 10:30
Just out of curiosity, what army do you play?

I can't believe you looked at the SM Codex and only saw the Land Raider as a bit filthy (I'm amazed the LR is considered so).

What about Tigurious Fear of the Darkness, or just plain Fear of the Darkness- against Tau and IG it's an auto-win button, especially in a Pod.

Or We Stand Alone as a disadvantage to a Trait- that is a joke that's got real old.


I'm looking at it from a 4th Ed POV, I'm aware 5th Ed boosted the LR somewhat- but it still costs a bomb and pays for two jobs when it can only do one at a time.

Max Jet
04-09-2008, 10:48
I would not add any restriction about the Marine Codex other than the land raider, because we still do not know how that army performs (the codex is not out yet) and I would take the obliterators out of the list, simply because they are o.k. now in fifth edition.
Other than that it sounds like a great list! I would support it anytime.
Perhaps Eldar 0-2 Falcons?

alphastealer
04-09-2008, 10:50
Hi,

I play nids. I purposely don't field a nidzilla list. My suggestions therefore to limit the land raider and monolith to 0-1 is in line with my nids being restricted in monsterous creatures...otherwise the nids would have little available to drop multiple land raiders and monoliths.

So my thinking is to have some general restrictions, but while some might seem unnecessary for a particular army, they make sense when you consider the restrictions of other armies.

The idea here is to re-balance tourney armies in order for the best tactical general to win on the day..not the cheesiest list. And yes, I have been to a number of tourneys and it seems that the cheese allwas floats to the top of the leaderboard...regardless of how brain dead the general is.

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 11:13
So my thinking is to have some general restrictions, but while some might seem unnecessary for a particular army, they make sense when you consider the restrictions of other armies.

It's a slippery slope though- every other tank apart from them two is AV 10 when your Nids charge, meaning even modified Hormagaunts can destroy it.
So should we restrict the number of biomorphs/Rending Claws so not every Nid model in the army can hurt every tank from the front?


The idea here is to re-balance tourney armies in order for the best tactical general to win on the day..not the cheesiest list. And yes, I have been to a number of tourneys and it seems that the cheese allwas floats to the top of the leaderboard...regardless of how brain dead the general is.

It's a great idea in theory- but 40k doesn't work at tournaments, it's not designed with balance or concise rules at all, it's just for a laugh and the games designers pretty much say as much now with the whole 'pay us 30, then write your own rules'.

As you've noted yourself all rigid comp restriction do is shift the broken onto something else, which will drift to the top of the leaderboard.

40k needs a far more fundamental rules re-write and playtesting to be tournament-compatible- and GW have stated many times they aren't trying to make it tournament-compatible, well written or playtested.

Models first- games distant second is the priority of business.

Edit: Just noticed I've got a Warning Level next to my name, not sure to be impressed or afraid, lol. At least it says 'this guy is a troll, his opinions are forfeit'- thanks Warseer.

Master Stark
04-09-2008, 11:55
My biggest gripe with tourneys is the cheesy imbalance of certain army builds, and I wonder if we could throw around a few ideas on how to correct the imbalance and allow a relatively equal opportunity for each army to be competitive without imposing too many restrictions.

The idea behind this is still to have diverse army builds at the tourney but to just cut out the guy who has built the most broken list he can think of.

While winning isn't everything, it is nice to know you have a fair chance, especially when there are great prizes up for grabs.

Here are some of the restrictions I would put in place for tourneys. Se ewhat you think and what you would add/change...etc.

Big no-no.

Making arbitrary limitations and restrictions is never a good idea. It stifles creativity, and ignores the 'problem'. The problem being not the use of a specific unit or two in the army, but the entire army build. Removing a players ability to take multiples of that unit will not prevent him from making a powerful list, it will just make him take a different unit, and it will unfairly penalise players who wanted to take those units in a non-abusive list.

The absolute best way to force players out of the 'abusive list' mold is to make interesting scenarios.

The player who tools his army to be as competitive as he can make it does so because he wants to win.

He wants to win all of his games.

And he wants to win them all by massacres.

He wants to win the event.

How do you make him take a more balanced list?

You make more balanced scenarios. Put limitations on some scenarios that obviously penalise some army builds. Have a 'fog' scenario to punish gun-lines. Have a 'boggy ground' scenario to punish combat armies. Have an 'escalation' scenario to punish vehicle heavy lists. Have a 'kill the enemy general' scenario to punish people who max out on HQs.

Someone who wants to win all their games will have to change their army to be adaptable and balanced in the various scenarios.

Bunnahabhain
04-09-2008, 11:57
That kind of system doesn't work very well, it just shifts the balance of power about.

If you want to do something about it:
1) run your own tournament, so you can set the rules.
2) Announce there will be composition scoring, , so armies can be chosed to take account of this
3) Score the lists. owever you do this, it must be before you play, so either all at once at the start, or if players are scoring each others, before they start that games.
4) i you're not deciding the tournament on just battle results (results, composition, sportsmanship, painting...), then have a best general, and best overall.

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 12:10
The exotic scenarios idea is great in theory, in practice though it polarises 40k even more into army list vs army list.

"I have Orks."
"I have IG."

Fog I win, Boggy you win.

The crux of it that is being avoided is to produce playtested, well-written army lists that balance all units and make them all viable. This won't happen, as it is not on the agenda, so short of house-ruling your own corrections to each Codex based on a panel of your club/gaming group and playtesting, your always going to be stuck with half-measures that don't completely work.

Master Stark
04-09-2008, 12:21
The exotic scenarios idea is great in theory, in practice though it polarises 40k even more into army list vs army list.

"I have Orks."
"I have IG."

Fog I win, Boggy you win.

Only to an extent. An IG player who has a good mix of mobile units, vehicles and static firepower won't find the fog scenario as limiting as the one who has the gunline.

The Ork player who hasn't gone the 180 orks choppy horde route won't find boggy ground such a hindrance.

Besides, giving the IG at least a 50/50 chance is better than the chance they have now!

The idea isn't to completely bone certain army types, but provide a good reason to build a mixed force. It's a tried and tested method, and usually works quite well. Of course there is always the potential for bad match-ups. Thats just the nature of the game.


The crux of it that is being avoided is to produce playtested, well-written army lists that balance all units and make them all viable. This won't happen, as it is not on the agenda, so short of house-ruling your own corrections to each Codex based on a panel of your club/gaming group and playtesting, your always going to be stuck with half-measures that don't completely work.

Absolutely agree with that. But it's important not to blow the imbalance issues way out of proportion. As much as people get upset about things on the internet, no army really has an 'I win' button to use on any other army.

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 12:38
Only to an extent. An IG player who has a good mix of mobile units, vehicles and static firepower won't find the fog scenario as limiting as the one who has the gunline.

The Ork player who hasn't gone the 180 orks choppy horde route won't find boggy ground such a hindrance.


Guard with mobile units? If you spam Leman Russ and Hellhounds, then you generally don't have many pts for actual Guardsmen- I like having Guardsmen in my Guard army.


Of course there is always the potential for bad match-ups. Thats just the nature of the game.

Agreed, I understand what your trying to do, I've used similar rules but in a campaign setting.
They do unfortunately make bad match-ups more frequent and more crippling.


Besides, giving the IG at least a 50/50 chance is better than the chance they have now!

Haha, too true.


Absolutely agree with that. But it's important not to blow the imbalance issues way out of proportion. As much as people get upset about things on the internet, no army really has an 'I win' button to use on any other army.

True, your opponent may collapse clutching his chest and forfeit the game by default- you can always hope...

I agree the imbalances are not so severe that an opponent can't win (assuming many mistakes on his side, lots of luck on opponents side)- but they can be very significant to the point it's a cake walk for the uber list and a very likely loss for the other player. It is significant enough to put good odds on who's going to win on army lists.

Unless of course, both players have uber lists- which inevitably is what happens, throwing variety, diversity and interest out of the window.

Cartographer
04-09-2008, 13:03
Have you considered running scenarios that grossly favour one side over the other, with the intention of setting up one side to lose, but make his objective to hold out as long as possible?

For example, have everyone bring 2 lists, a 750 pt and a 1500 pt (or 1000 + 2000).
All boards are 4x4, have an objective in the centre and the defender (with the lower points) has to contest the objective for as long as possible. The attacker can recycle his units as soon as they die and they can come on from his table edge or either flank. As soon as the objective is not held or contested by the defender, the game ends and the players swap sides and go again. After the two games the difference in how long you held the objective for is how many points you get from the game, it's zero-sum, so one person could score 2 while his opponent would get -2. Have everyone play 3(6) games and total up for the winner.

If there is a draw for top place after 3(6) games, have the leaders play-off to decide.

Carlos
04-09-2008, 13:06
I've never been in a tournament but the problem I see is that people want to build killer, game winning army lists to win right? So why not take the impetus of a tournament away from winning and instead put it more towards points for each game based on army composition, adherence to the fluff ('Realistically' which 1500pts marine army will have more than one Land Raider?) and the ability between the players of the game to come up with a credible backstory (banter during play) between themselves as to why their armies are fighting each other? Obviously you still get points for winning, but it at least encourages a bit of imagination to go into it as well and anyone that doesnt think imagination is the cornerstone of wargaming is frankly an idiot.

This in my mind still encourages a game winning attitude but adds creativity into the pool as well.

Of course the simplest way of balancing out any tournament would be to to veto the 'WIPEOUT!' rule in ALL games and say that if you do manage to totally destroy your opponents army the game is automatically a draw because there is no way you can concentrate on taking objectives and annihilating your opponent at the same time.

mooze
04-09-2008, 13:11
Somewhere long ago I had a set of tourney rules for whfb that gave points for fluffy units (arrer boyz in o/g, spearmen in empire, peasant yeomen in bretts., etc.) and removed points for super killy units and then savagely removed points for multiple killy units (two chaos chosen of khorne and you were not in any way able to win the tourney). These rules were heavily biased towards army construction and sportsmanship and less so for painting and win/loss. The drawback is that the tourney organizers would need all lists at least a week in advance so as to go through the lists and crucify the cheesemongers. That is a lot of work but it would definitely bounce the "I must win or my humanity is without value" types out of the tourney ( or at least the winning of the tourney). I wish I could remember where I got those from.

Master Stark
04-09-2008, 13:16
'Realistically' which 1500pts marine army will have more than one Land Raider?

Deathwing? Any other 1st company force?

Any 1,500pts that represents an armored spearhead?

Eryx_UK
04-09-2008, 13:28
As a random thought, how about maximum percentages on army construction. Say 15% for HQ, 70% on troops, 20% for elites...etc. Doesn't have to add up to 100% cos its only maximum's. That way players can still take what they want within the percentages. I don't know if it would work but its an idea.

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 13:39
I've never been in a tournament but the problem I see is that people want to build killer, game winning army lists to win right? So why not take the impetus of a tournament away from winning and instead put it more towards points for each game based on army composition, adherence to the fluff ('Realistically' which 1500pts marine army will have more than one Land Raider?) and the ability between the players of the game to come up with a credible backstory (banter during play) between themselves as to why their armies are fighting each other? Obviously you still get points for winning, but it at least encourages a bit of imagination to go into it as well and anyone that doesnt think imagination is the cornerstone of wargaming is frankly an idiot.


Who defines fluff? Who hires a judge for every table to sit and listen to players 'make stuff up'?

Nope, at the point your going- a Campaign Event is preferable, rather than a Tournament. Campaign Events can be great, teams or factions, rare missions like Bunker Assault, various pts limits, even various game systems.


Somewhere long ago I had a set of tourney rules for whfb that gave points for fluffy units (arrer boyz in o/g, spearmen in empire, peasant yeomen in bretts., etc.) and removed points for super killy units and then savagely removed points for multiple killy units (two chaos chosen of khorne and you were not in any way able to win the tourney). These rules were heavily biased towards army construction and sportsmanship and less so for painting and win/loss. The drawback is that the tourney organizers would need all lists at least a week in advance so as to go through the lists and crucify the cheesemongers. That is a lot of work but it would definitely bounce the "I must win or my humanity is without value" types out of the tourney ( or at least the winning of the tourney). I wish I could remember where I got those from.

Fluffy doesn't always mean the worst unit in the army book. I'd reward players for taking the underpowered stuff, and penalise for the overpowered stuff- but it is not connected to fluff, but to game balance.

We agree on the aim, we disagree on the justification for it.

Bunnahabhain
04-09-2008, 13:42
As a random thought, how about maximum percentages on army construction. Say 15% for HQ, 70% on troops, 20% for elites...etc. Doesn't have to add up to 100% cos its only maximum's. That way players can still take what they want within the percentages. I don't know if it would work but its an idea.


Trouble is, lots of the broken , very popular units, are just that as they are undercosted....

Foe example. Nidzilla. Elite Carnifexs are an essential component of this. They come to 350pts for all three, so for a fairly standard 1750pts list, that's only 20%, which is quite reasonable.

I'm sure we can think of plenty of other example in different armies and FOC slots.

TheLionReturns
04-09-2008, 13:57
Two things for me.

1. Introduce varied scenarios so one trick pony lists are penalised. Need to put some thought in what these would be, but ensuring an army needs a lot of capabilities to cover all eventualities should help cut down on cheese lists.

2. Reduce the significance of the results of the game and put slightly more emphasis on painting, background and having an interesting list. This composition, painting and background is to be judged by an independent panel of judges.


This should dampen the competitive in-game element slightly and reflect the entirety of the hobby better, hopefully shifting the focus from simply winning to fun in a general sense, which after all is what the game is designed for.

If straightforward competition on the table is all that is wanted I'm afraid a complete rewrite of the entire ruleset is the only real option, as the game has not been designed with competition in mind. Even then loopholes will probably be found.

IronNerd
04-09-2008, 14:21
Tournaments have imposed balance in them. When I first started, I was oblivious to comp and the like, and I played the hated IW army. Now I would show up at lots of tourneys and wipe the floor with people, but I didn't win a single tourney. In addition to that, I think 5th Ed. is going to make games closer, which means comp and painting are going to matter more in tournaments, therefore imposing further balance. Changing the 'dexes is wrong in my opinion, I would not support that at all.

SPYDER68
04-09-2008, 14:49
Limiting things wont gain much, i tossed a IG 1500 pt army last night and i just about stomped a duel lash army...

If you add tons of restictions it turns it into noobtourney.

Let somone take multi big bugs, with as many marine players as there is, load up on Ap weapons and theyll be goners.

let marines take multi landraiders, its 230+ points that can go up in one shot and less firepower then a Predater.

necrons can take 2 monoliths in 1500, thats 1/3 of their army, 2 lucky shots or some mass shots into the warriors and its over, its a hardy tank but not overpowerd.

Harliquins ? bring em on, bait with a squad and after its dead just rapid fire them and they just lost 250 ish points to kill 1 squad.

Lash of submission ? it can be a bit harsh but other times meh, probly the worst of things to go against.



To me best part of a tourney is making a list and doing tactics to overcome these things, thats what makes it a good fight/game.

btw if your worried about broken, just wait till the new marine codex is here with all the things they get, 75% of a tourney Marines if not more.. yay! 3+ saves for everyone....

Templar Ben
04-09-2008, 16:20
It's a great idea in theory- but 40k doesn't work at tournaments, it's not designed with balance or concise rules at all, it's just for a laugh and the games designers pretty much say as much now with the whole 'pay us 30, then write your own rules'.

As you've noted yourself all rigid comp restriction do is shift the broken onto something else, which will drift to the top of the leaderboard.

That is very true. The problem is they have a lot of the trappings of a competitive game (point values for instance) and that leads people to think it must be appropriate for that. Much like people think that because a car has a spoiler it must drive very fast.


40k needs a far more fundamental rules re-write and playtesting to be tournament-compatible- and GW have stated many times they aren't trying to make it tournament-compatible, well written or playtested.

Models first- games distant second is the priority of business.

They know where there strength is. I don't have a problem with them building fun games. I just wish more players would figure out that limitation.


Edit: Just noticed I've got a Warning Level next to my name, not sure to be impressed or afraid, lol. At least it says 'this guy is a troll, his opinions are forfeit'- thanks Warseer.

We can't see your warning level. That is more of a note to you. :angel:

Master Jeridian
04-09-2008, 16:50
That is very true. The problem is they have a lot of the trappings of a competitive game (point values for instance) and that leads people to think it must be appropriate for that. Much like people think that because a car has a spoiler it must drive very fast.


Agreed, 40k being their flagship product tries to appeal to all aspects of the hobby and so is torn in various directions never totally satisfying one crowd.


They know where there strength is. I don't have a problem with them building fun games. I just wish more players would figure out that limitation.

It is a shame IMO, because GW has the experience and know-how to produce decent, balanced games- like Epic.
A 40k Advanced, as is often suggested, is entirely within their capability skill-wise- a lot of things like Run being a double move rather than yet another random dice roll, being in cover making you harder to hit, not the rubbish AP system of Magic saves now, etc, etc.

I can't justify spending that amount of money to see which player can roll better dice, and who has bought the most recent models and so better rules. Obviously many others can, hence GW not needing to appeal to actual wargaming.

I say it's a shame because whilst their are plenty of better written wargames out there- I really enjoy the 40k background and models.


We can't see your warning level. That is more of a note to you.

Haha, that's good to know- I'm a Level 15 Troll btw, :rolleyes:

Vandur Last
04-09-2008, 17:34
Those are some lame and arbitrary looking restrictions.

Whats so wrong with Wraith Lords that you want to force us to take Fire Prisms instead?

Less Carnifexes, more Genestealers...why?

Why are you more worried about Daemon Princes than about Khorne Lords with Daemon weapons?

Land Raiders dominate a game too much, better spend those points on Death Company??

maelstrom66669
04-09-2008, 19:10
Why should tournaments be more balanced so you can win? ive not played for a while but isnt there still the force organization chart? it seems to me its more about being a poor sport than anything, its like me saying basketball rims should be lowered two feet so i can dunk the ball too, cus its just cheesy that only good players can.

McPherson
04-09-2008, 20:04
Honestly I dont like the idea of tournaments going more towards painting and sportsmanship - why?

Well there have been plenty of tournaments on both sides of the pond i've been to where I've had a fully painted table quality army, won every game but still come out with nothing because "I didnt have any customised models, thats penalises you in comparison to Joe Mc Customisation over there with his fully customised nid list which he dipped and drybrushed."

I'm sorry but there arent that many customisation options you can do when making a marine chapter look like a uniform army.

Painting (even by independant judges) is an entirely arbitary thing, we have a local here with a beautifully painted Witchhunters army, one which I wish I could paint as good as - again it's a uniform army with all the squads marked up and the whole army with a universal theme.

And yet the Joke Chaos army I made for a friend won, why? Because they thought the squirrels riding mantarays (Customised Screamers of Tzeentch) was funny and awesome. They were funny and awesome, but there were no where near the best painted army there.

I'd rather if I come to a tournament fight hard and win my games that it counts more than some judge going, "DUUUDE! I freaking love this one mini in the army, top painting score - even if the rest if the army is barely tournament standard painting."

That rant aside - yes tournaments are unbalanced and full of cheese lists.

I try and play a fluffy blood angels list, assault marines and tac marines supported by fast moving Baals and the death company. Some would say my lists are cheesy because I have 2 HQ's (a Chaplain for the DC and either Mephiston or a Force Commander) but it's fluffy, the Chaplain's in the Blood Angels dont lead armies, they concentrate their energies entirely on the Death Company - thus a seperate commander for the grand battle plan would be needed.

So then we get to the point of composition scores, would I get marked down because of 2 HQ's in a 1750 force? If the judge claims I did it for cheese instead of fluff - yes. Would I get marked down because I take 3 Baals instead of any dedicated anti-tank Heavy support units? If the judge thinks I have a hardon for Assault Cannons - yes, if the judge realises its a dedicated anti-infantry support tank the Blood Angels use to support their advance - no. I'd rather not go into a tournament and have that 'what if' always hanging over my head.

So how do you balance a 40k tournament?

The easiest way of course is for GW to build 100% balanced army lists. This is never going to happen - we can forget it now - and honestly I'm fine with that, I rarely play in tournaments and a little unbalancing is fun (and it's not as bad as some people like to claim - most lists are close to each other - especially in 5'th now CC can consolodate into CC - gone are the days my BA and Orks licked their lips seeing a guard gunline all clumped up)

Forcing arbitary unit restrictions as mentioned in the OP? Not really fond of that idea. It again is a case of what the judge thinks is cheesy. Oh I think wraithlords are super effective, you can only take 1. Well that'll just make the eldar player either get upset because they cant field their army anymore becuase they went with a Wraith army (Wraithguard & Wraithlords) Or it'll make the cheeseplayers simply switch out the Wraithlords with something else. Obviously this is just one example but it can be applied with everything.

3) Scenarios. While very hit or miss for some armies this is by far the most FUN solution. I fully encourage random scenarios as long as they are balanced out throughout the tournament, so instead of having 3 scenarios that screw over CC or shooty armies, have 1 of each that doesnt Screw them Over but puts them at an disadvantage, then the final round its a fair scenario that either penalises both or neither.

Best tournament game I've had recently had a 'variable gravity' special rule, was horrible for my CC army but I still played it, had a laugh and adjusted my tactics to compensate for the disadvantages (-d6 or +d6 to movement depending) Scenarios as long as you (the player) are informed before hand that they are going to be in play (you dont need ot tell them what the scenario is - just that they are going to be used) will encourage players to build more flexable lists, of course the die hard powergamers will still build their one trick pony cheeselists and will either hit or miss depending on things work out, but thats the risk they take by not diluting that cheese with a few other bits to help balance out against the scenario.

4. Allow xxx point sidebord lists - i've seen tournaments (And ran tournaments) with either a percentage of your army allowed from a sideboard secondary list or sometimes even players having 2 complete builds (from the same codex) and they can pick whichever one before the game begins. Not a perfect solution but it allows players to have enough flexability so if the guard gunline player suddenly finds himself against a CC army on a foggy day they can switch out some of those units for guardsmen in Chimeras to grant them mobility.

Anyway - sorry for the wall of text - my work here is done - for now :D

- McPherson

IronNerd
04-09-2008, 20:51
Excellent post McPherson, and I tend to agree with most of your points. I'm not a very good painter, and I can accept that. However, I don't like losing tourneys because of it. There isn't any good way to judge subjective things like sportsmanship, comp, and painting, so I don't think it's good that they will count more.

Strange scenarios is probably the only way to even out real cheese armies vs. balanced lists. However, if 'Ard Boyz from last year is any indication of GW's ability to make strange scenarios, it might not be the best. Don't get me wrong, some of them were great fun, but some of them were completely rediculous.

Bunnahabhain
04-09-2008, 20:53
Scenarios are a good idea, but they do need to be well tested first.

Who remembers the tournament, at the height of 4th ed holofalcon spam, the lava tables? Yes, lets create something really characterful, that cripples lots of armies, and does absolutely nothing to those already very powerful skimmer based lists...

That's what can happen, and what has to be avoided, if you want to use unorthodox scinarios and terrain set ups to solve more problems than they create...

You can limit various things, which will affect certain armies more than others. As noted, If they really cripple one thing, then the only the one trick ponies really suffer.

Possible limitations for a game. Fill in the fluff as needed. Next game, maybe a standard scenario, maybe a different strange one.


No deep strike at all. Ever. For anyone.

No outflanking. For anyone, not even wolfscouts or that ork stormboy character.

Drifting fog. Any unit wishing to shoot must roll a D6, on a 1, it or it's target is stuck in a fogbank. the fog contains radioactive dust, or some other materiel, so the power of the hive mind, adavanced Tau sensors or anything else can't see through it.

Something weird in the warp. All psykers must use one more dice than normal for psychic tests, and discard the lowest one

This is just throwing out ideas. They need to be tested before use, to see what works, and what doesn't.

lanrak
04-09-2008, 22:34
Hmmm.
How do I ballance tournaments?
I dont have to I simply pick a rule set developed for ballanced competative play, and play the game!

I dont pick a game TOTALY unsuitable for competative play , make some random arbitary restrictions, and think we good to go.:wtf:

Some people like to play competativley. This is fine.
IF they pick a game that has been developed for this type of game play.

40k is not, has not, and probably will NEVER be developed to be suitable for ballanced competative play.
So playing 40k competativley is the same as playing , Monopoly, Cludo, Ludo, Kerplunk, Buckeroo ,Mouse Trap, etc competativley.

It may 'float your boat', but its nothing to brag about.:eyebrows:


TTFN
Lanrak.

Temprus
05-09-2008, 00:06
If you want a truly balanced tournament, you only have one real thing to do: Use a fixed army list for all participants, no deviations allowed. ;)

Staurikosaurus
05-09-2008, 07:32
I have had shop talks with many of my fellow gamers along these lines over the many years I've been playing and it's VERY hard to come to a consensus on this type of topic. Out of all of the tournaments I've been to however (and there have been quite a few) the best one had the following format:

1. At least one unit MUST be taken from each portion of the Force Organization chart with the normal minimum and maximums of the standard FoC remaining in place. Additionally all units must be fully painted (3 colours and painted/modelled bases). No more than 30% of the total army points may be spent in any one category save Troops, which may have no more than 40%. Units which "count as" Troops choices owing to specific special rules when they would otherwise be present in another portion of the FoC still count towards their original FoC points limit and NOT the Troops limit. They still operate as normal within the game (deploying as Troops etc).
2. All armies MUST have a background story (1 page in length).
3. Sportsmanship was scored on a 1-5 scale
3. Armies were scored on comp (as detailed in 1) and painting with a chart detailing how many points a person was awarded for each (1-10). If it was found that someone had intentionally filled out the chart wrong or marked a person down in order to gain an advantage, that person lost ALL of their points for that round.
4. Tournament had 4 games per person on 4 different boards using 4 different scenarios

While this rule set did limit some of the more specialized armies out there, everyone at the tourney had a great time and NO ONE ended up losing their points for a round as the penalty for poor sportsmanship was quite clear.

Havock
05-09-2008, 15:48
The whole problem is that this game isn't "balanced", if you seek that, you should give every race one or two lists that people can use. Each of which is on the same level. So everybody has a queen, and everybody has a knight or two ;)

jfrazell
05-09-2008, 16:09
Simple everyone plays the same army list (kroot mercs of course), or in a pinch marines :)

It would be a balanced list that could be derived from a battlebox or such. The list would also be generic (including things such as flamers and MLs vs. the usal las/plas-ie not tailored specifically to fight other marines). Everyone would bring that paintyed/converted equivalent and play away.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
05-09-2008, 16:16
Ban Special Characers

Each non-troops unit have 0-1 restriction.

Unique missions

SPYDER68
05-09-2008, 16:22
Ban Special Characers

Each non-troops unit have 0-1 restriction.

Unique missions

Thtas pointless due to some peoples troops are much better then others, and some Elites etc are 10x better then others.

Marines can take a squad of termies...
Guard gets a squad of 10 guys that are base guardsment with +1 BS and a couple extra weapons.

Kind of a big differemce


Best way is to have army Composition rules - 40% troops 24% max on rest or a variance of this.

Fist of Crimson
05-09-2008, 17:09
How about non troops units costing more points when taken in duplicate?

e.g. You can purchase one falcon as normal. If you take a second one you add 10% to the points. Take a third and you add 20% to it's cost.

Might work better than an outright limit on the number you can take.

McPherson
05-09-2008, 19:41
How about non troops units costing more points when taken in duplicate?

e.g. You can purchase one falcon as normal. If you take a second one you add 10% to the points. Take a third and you add 20% to it's cost.

Might work better than an outright limit on the number you can take.

Only problem I see with that is some armies rely on their non-troop choices for actual hitting power - or even the bulk of their builds in some extremes.

After all a guard player would get annoyed if the Leman Russes he relys on to give him long range shooty power suddenly end up costing more.

Or a Tau player suddenly finding the suits he uses are more.

Not all armies basic troop choices are equal either - this suggestion just seems to be forcing people to take basic troop choices or pay through the nose for something they're already loosing on because it cant take objectives.

*shrugs* Just my 2 cents - I still think Scenarios are the way to go, something that doesnt specifically peanlise anyone on any kind of army build, but makes players think about building flexability into their lists to deal with any kind of scenario.

- McPherson

Lion El Jason
05-09-2008, 20:08
Personally I think all these suggestions are ruining the whole idea.

You make your tournament list, if you can't beat some wacky list then you failed!
I see this as the whole advantage to the existance of Armoured company, tripple monolith etc... they make you have to consider the possibility of facing them.

Also the FoC is great for limiting armies, % restrictions or further restrictions is just going to horribly cripple some armies while doing nothing to others.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
05-09-2008, 20:14
Thtas pointless due to some peoples troops are much better then others, and some Elites etc are 10x better then others.

Marines can take a squad of termies...
Guard gets a squad of 10 guys that are base guardsment with +1 BS and a couple extra weapons.

Kind of a big differemce


Best way is to have army Composition rules - 40% troops 24% max on rest or a variance of this.

pointless ?

show me broken troops choice, which when spammed win 90% games.

such limitation prevent people from spamming the same elite/hs/fa/hq unit - it's fair and keep spirit of the game.

besides - forces should be about troops.

McPherson
05-09-2008, 21:18
pointless ?

show me broken troops choice, which when spammed win 90% games.

such limitation prevent people from spamming the same elite/hs/fa/hq unit - it's fair and keep spirit of the game.

besides - forces should be about troops.

Ork Slugga Boyz?

180 of them will win 90% of games :P

- McPherson

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
05-09-2008, 21:32
Ork Slugga Boyz?

180 of them will win 90% of games :P

- McPherson

funny thing, but against defiler, lash prince, berzerkers in lr, raptors with flamers, oblits and rhino marines it's tough game for the ork player :)

SPYDER68
05-09-2008, 21:34
Blood angels get Jump packs as troops, Ever hear of deathwing ? oh wait... what about drop pod armies ? ... all troops ? yep...

damiengore
05-09-2008, 22:10
Funny, the last and only 5th edition tourney I was at had an Eldar player using 3 Wraithlords and an Avatar in 1000points, I think he ranked about 23 out of 26 players and drew all his games.

Oblits a 0-1 choice? Why, thay ain't that good.

And LR's, lol, why?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
05-09-2008, 23:39
Blood angels get Jump packs as troops, Ever hear of deathwing ? oh wait... what about drop pod armies ? ... all troops ? yep...

beside the fact, that Blood Angels do not have greater amount of basic assault squads than most other chapters, its weird that they have RAS as troops choice. but anyway it is weak.

Deathwing. it's not more difficult to get rid of them than without 0-1 limit. beside - it's perfectly fluffy for them :P

Drop Pod armies are far from unbeatable. in fact they are ok. and fluffy too!

SPYDER68
06-09-2008, 00:12
beside the fact, that Blood Angels do not have greater amount of basic assault squads than most other chapters, its weird that they have RAS as troops choice. but anyway it is weak.

Deathwing. it's not more difficult to get rid of them than without 0-1 limit. beside - it's perfectly fluffy for them :P

Drop Pod armies are far from unbeatable. in fact they are ok. and fluffy too!

So "balancing" a game all depends on what you think is fluffy ?

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
06-09-2008, 00:24
So "balancing" a game all depends on what you think is fluffy ?

you obviously misread.

balance is balance. perfect stance that will never be achived.

my idea to balance tournament and to create more diverse lists is simple:

limit every choice to 0-1 not counting troops.

this simple change prevents most cheese lists and unit spamming. do you seriously like facing 2 Lash prince 9 oblits armies ? i do not like them.

Nobody here succed at pointing me ONE troops choice which is so awersome to be auto-win. not a one person. If it would be the case, it should be already awersome. I play in Poland - i know personaly some 40k European Champions - Polish players. So i know what powerful list mean.

as a bonus, more players will play fluffy lists. it is nice. Your statement is not true. Correct yourself.

understood ?

TheDarkDuke
06-09-2008, 01:48
With the new missions I think a lot of it has been balanced, min/max = weaker in capture objectives, mass hoarde = far more KPs. I think there are key points however.

1) Ensure that each player must compete in a Capture and a KP mission.
2) Comp scoring should be done by say 3 people not playing in the tournament.
3) Painting scores should be voted on prior to any games being played without knowing whose is whose, via balloting. One for the competitors and one for the comp scorers.
4) Generalship voted by your opposition, and by the same comp scorers watching several games at a time.
5) Sportsmanship voted on by your opposition and by the comp scorers observations.

I think this would allow for more versatile lists as if you were to be forced into playing one of each mission type waac players would not want to throw a match out the window cause they stacked the list for the other form of mission. The comp scoring and fan/player voting creates a two tier scoring system, which would create balanced scores based on a organizer and fan favorite type scoring. The comp people may really like the NMM painting and the effort put into it, but the fans may really like the converting and use of colors by another army. Result is you gain two perspectives and reward points more balanced. Comp scoring by the same people will cut off inconsistancy from a waac player against 2 fluff heavy gamers, and their difference in comp scoring. Generalship based on how your opposition feels you did/you feel you did compared to well some dice god luck is the only reason that the game went your way, and from what comp scorers witness to add a third unbias vote.

I know tournaments do some of these, or these to degrees, and smaller tournaments will have a hard time with many of these, I think that this comes down to the local smaller tournaments do not have nearly the the problems as they are usually commonly playing each other and not running into random people.

Miggidy Mack
06-09-2008, 02:22
What we really need is for GW to balance the units in the list, not limit the number. We need a living document that updates and alters the codex lists for tournaments. Of course that will never happen because:

A) That's what every other company with successful tournament scenes does.
B) This is the year 2008 and the internet hasn't been invented yet so disseminating this document would be impossible.
C) Quality customer service can only drive a company into bankruptcy, especially customer service that is basically free to provide.
D) Building and maintaining a living document is impossible. Wizards of the Coast, Privateer Press and Catalyst have all proven it.
E) The resources to create such a document are incredibly high. They require things games workshop doesn't have. Like a website, a personal computer, a copy of adobe acrobat and 4 or 5 hours of time.
F) It's not necessary. Games Workshop, like the Pope, is infallible. Changing anything without YEARS between codex's would be heresy!

Occulto
06-09-2008, 02:28
Army balance occurs when a balanced army is required to do well. Most power gaming lists focus on one thing - killing their opponent in the shortest amount of time. Players should have to master a range of situations to get the podium placing.

This happens when an event uses a range of missions. The majority of imbalance occurs in straight up VP harvests. By including objective missions, night fight or reserves a lot of the "weaker" armies get opportunities to do well.

Terrain is also key to a balanced event. Inevitably, after every tournament the tables that get criticised are those which are extreme - the one covered in forest, the one with the huge lava flows everywhere, the cityfight one and so on. You rarely hear complaints about the tables with a good mix of stuff. Sure they mightn't look as spectacular as a really detailed Stalingrad table, but when a player's at a severe disadvantage from the start, a good looking table isn't much consolation.

Guaranteed, if there's a table with heaps of bunkers, trenches etc - someone's going to face infantry guard on it, and the TO will spend the rest of the event hearing about it!

Composition's copped a lot of flak over the years because it's got a really negative vibe. For so many people, it's just a big whacking stick to stop abuse rather than something positive.

My approach is this: if someone manages to do well and they've done it with a really well done themed list, doesn't that deserve something extra? Reward people for putting a bit of effort into not just winning, but winning with style. Just get players to vote for who they thought were the best three armies they played against.

The key shouldn't be to blanket nerfings across the board, which is what a lot of comp suggestions end up doing. A Biel-Tan force with minimal Troops because the player wants to focus on non-DA aspects? That's not particularly OTT, yet there's these restrictions thrown round that'd cripple them.

A 0-1 blanket ban simply makes people fight with patch work armies, which doesn't suddenly make them balanced. If a Tau player takes two Hammerheads, that's not particularly unbalanced. A DA player taking two units of scouts or a Nid player taking two units of warriors isn't particularly horrible either. Plus, if someone's got a set 1500 point tournament army and the TO says that's illegal, all they're going to do is not turn up.

"Sorry sir, you've got two wraithlords in your Iyanden. We can't allow that." :wtf:

People shouldn't feel like they have to make their army incapable of fighting it's way out of a wet paper bag. It's much better if people know that they'll be rewarded for skill and intelligent play, rather than the event turning into "who's got the biggest 40K equivalent of a nuke?" :rolleyes:

The TO should concentrate on the things they control - terrain, missions and getting the draw right (so new players don't face the local champion) rather than trying to curb every abuse.

Master Stark
06-09-2008, 03:16
you obviously misread.

balance is balance. perfect stance that will never be achived.

my idea to balance tournament and to create more diverse lists is simple:

limit every choice to 0-1 not counting troops.

Why on earth would you do that? It fails to address any problem you might think of, and artificialy restricts people from making themed armies.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
06-09-2008, 03:29
Why on earth would you do that? It fails to address any problem you might think of, and artificialy restricts people from making themed armies.

foc is also artifacial :>

and it indeed stops many problems. of course it create other problems, but nothing is ideal :)

Iyanden army with 1 Wraithguard is perfectly viable. This craftworld use not only wraithbone warriors, but most of other things - like guardians, aspects, vehicles and so on.

Master Stark
06-09-2008, 03:37
foc is also artifacial :>

and it indeed stops many problems. of course it create other problems, but nothing is ideal :)

Iyanden army with 1 Wraithguard is perfectly viable. This craftworld use not only wraithbone warriors, but most of other things - like guardians, aspects, vehicles and so on.

But why would you do it?

It's not balancing the armies and it's making it impossible to make themed armies.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
06-09-2008, 03:53
But why would you do it?

It's not balancing the armies and it's making it impossible to make themed armies.

to prevent some builds from playing ?

also, it's perfectly possible to theme. i play fast attack force using codex:chaos. without cult troops and only undivided. does 0-1 hurt me ? yes. it is more balanced ? yeah.

cuts down 'uber unit' spam.

Master Stark
06-09-2008, 04:08
to prevent some builds from playing ?

What builds? And why?

And why 'prevent' them from playing? Why not simply 'discourage' them from playing?

SPYDER68
06-09-2008, 04:27
you obviously misread.

balance is balance. perfect stance that will never be achived.

my idea to balance tournament and to create more diverse lists is simple:

limit every choice to 0-1 not counting troops.

this simple change prevents most cheese lists and unit spamming. do you seriously like facing 2 Lash prince 9 oblits armies ? i do not like them.

Nobody here succed at pointing me ONE troops choice which is so awersome to be auto-win. not a one person. If it would be the case, it should be already awersome. I play in Poland - i know personaly some 40k European Champions - Polish players. So i know what powerful list mean.

as a bonus, more players will play fluffy lists. it is nice. Your statement is not true. Correct yourself.

understood ?

Yes lets do what it takes to limit one army and nerf another in the process.

Troops are not balanced.. And if a tourny is limited to alot of 0 -1 choices, almost everyone will be playing the same army.

This will make people want to play more fluff lists ? Nope, this says lets all spam troops!

the 0 - 1 HQ, Elites, Fast attack and Heavy only hurt certain armies...

Marines can take 1 HQ choice and have multi HQ's in it... What about black templar ? 0-1 HQ ? they are required to take a Emp champion.. and if you say that doesnt count, wel then why should they get 2 HQ Type units and others dont ?

1 Elite... 1 fast attack.. 1 heavy... Lets nerf the players who want a fun army that is not cheesy. Im sorry Sir, you cannot take a squad of howling banshees and a squad of fire dragons. Take your pick.. Swooping hawks or warp spiders.. Not allowed to use both.. because we gota place special rules just to deal with duel lash and oblits.

Occulto
06-09-2008, 04:40
Iyanden army with 1 Wraithguard is perfectly viable. This craftworld use not only wraithbone warriors, but most of other things - like guardians, aspects, vehicles and so on.

My point is, there's nothing particularly wrong with it in the first place. I'm not talking about whether it's "viable" or not. If an player has already built a fixed list (as so many players do) or has a limited collection, then they won't have the models to change.

In most cases it's also not just one unit that needs to go - if a DW list with two dreads changes, then that player doesn't have a replacement unit that slots in easily. So they've got to drop something else (say an apothecary + standard bearer) to fit in another squad. Or they've got to take RW allies.

You'd never see a SW army, because you've just barred a perfectly legal army.

So many armies take duplicate non-Troop choices and they're in no way unbalanced. That's the problem with your idea. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Most players I know would just think: "too much effort" and go find an alternative event or stay home. :rolleyes:

SPYDER68
06-09-2008, 04:46
You can get an unlimited amount of wraithguard, but only 1 mounted squad thou, 10 = troops choice.

Forgot to mention no 2x Prism tanks ? They are meant to be taken with more then one to charge...

ThunderShrike.
06-09-2008, 07:26
Hi,

Many if us enjoy playing in tourneys. It is fun, competitive and a great way to meet new people and play against people you might not normally see.

My biggest gripe with tourneys is the cheesy imbalance of certain army builds, and I wonder if we could throw around a few ideas on how to correct the imbalance and allow a relatively equal opportunity for each army to be competitive without imposing too many restrictions.

The idea behind this is still to have diverse army builds at the tourney but to just cut out the guy who has built the most broken list he can think of.

While winning isn't everything, it is nice to know you have a fair chance, especially when there are great prizes up for grabs.

Here are some of the restrictions I would put in place for tourneys. Se ewhat you think and what you would add/change...etc.

For the standard 1500pt tourney I would like to see the following as an

example:

Chaos

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:
1) Lash of submission
2) Obliterators
3) Daemon prince

Eldar

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:
1) Wraithlord
2) Harlequines
3) Rangers

Tyranids

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Hive Tyrant
2) Elite carnifex

Space Marines

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Land Raider

Necrons

The following items are 0-1 for the tourney:

1) Monolith

I don't know of any other pressing issues in the other armies or what others experience as being broken, where they would suggest a reasonable restriction.

Remember the idea here is not to box players into all taking the same kind of configuration, it is only to remove the known (really abused combinations).


A analysis gives the following results:

You can't win so you cry "cheese" about other peoples armies and then you decide to introduce these totalitarian-noob rules.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
06-09-2008, 08:13
Yes lets do what it takes to limit one army and nerf another in the process.

Troops are not balanced.. And if a tourny is limited to alot of 0 -1 choices, almost everyone will be playing the same army.

This will make people want to play more fluff lists ? Nope, this says lets all spam troops!

the 0 - 1 HQ, Elites, Fast attack and Heavy only hurt certain armies...

Marines can take 1 HQ choice and have multi HQ's in it... What about black templar ? 0-1 HQ ? they are required to take a Emp champion.. and if you say that doesnt count, wel then why should they get 2 HQ Type units and others dont ?

1 Elite... 1 fast attack.. 1 heavy... Lets nerf the players who want a fun army that is not cheesy. Im sorry Sir, you cannot take a squad of howling banshees and a squad of fire dragons. Take your pick.. Swooping hawks or warp spiders.. Not allowed to use both.. because we gota place special rules just to deal with duel lash and oblits.

WTF? 0-1 choice does not mean 1HQ 1E 1FS 1HS

it mean every unit have 0-1 restriction.

Sholto
06-09-2008, 08:17
I like the idea of having a "normal" competition and a "cheesy" competition. In the normal one you get points for army composition and in the cheesy one anything goes.

In regards to army composition, I would run it so that for every so many points deducted you either gave away a kill point or an objective in each game, depending on the game. This would ensure that cheesy armies in the normal competition would play at a huge disadvantage.

Sholto

the1stpip
06-09-2008, 12:40
One idea that a recent tournament used was to have 'strategy' cards, like in 2nd ed.

You would have a small number (like 5) and these would have to last you the whole tournament.

You could have for example.

Solar Eclipse. For one turn only (both players) all units must test for night fighting.
Heavy Gravity. This game, players roll two dice for running or fleet, and take the lowest.

etc.

People have to choose when to use these cards, as they do not get replenished, but can be useful in the long run.

And I have thought that 0-2 for each slot other than troops is not a bad way to go, but then 5th ed already emphasises on troops anyway.

SPYDER68
06-09-2008, 17:23
WTF? 0-1 choice does not mean 1HQ 1E 1FS 1HS

it mean every unit have 0-1 restriction.

Either way as posted before, hardly any would play in a tourny with those restrictions, and its for the people who want a handicap to have a better chance.


Thers no point to further argue about this, its just a waste of time, i played duel Lash last weekend with my guard and curb stomped it, its not that bad with the right tactics.

This thread has become.. Waaa i hate duel lash, and oblits, lets find a way to nerf that 1 army and make others not as fun.

McPherson
07-09-2008, 19:52
funny thing, but against defiler, lash prince, berzerkers in lr, raptors with flamers, oblits and rhino marines it's tough game for the ork player :)

Sorry for the delay getting back to you on this - was at at tournament.

Against the lash prince, berzerkers, raptors oblits and rhino marines the Ork player has just an easy win as anything else.

Doubly so if your enforcing 0-1 of everything not troops in your tournaments, nothing you've listed there is immune to the ork horde, you need multiple pie plates to break up a horde, multiple raptor squads with flamers, multiple obliterator squads with templates.

And while your trying your damnedest to stop the ork horde, they sit there with their 1 HQ (Big Mek W KFF giving the whole thing cover saves regardless of anything your trying - or if you allow characters, Mad Dok in one of those 30 man squads - preferably 'ardboyz giving them all FNP and if the ork player wants everything with a 5+ invulnerable) their 1 Elites choice, 1 Heavy and 1 Fast Attack are pounding your 'specialist anti horde units' out of exsistance.

Really some armies are better off on their troop choices than others, and some armies rely on their elites and heavies more than others (again I point at Imperial Guard and their need of tank support or Tau and their Crisis Suits)

GW designs codexes around the FoC which is 2HQ, 6Troop, 3Elite, 3FastAttack, 3 Heavy. Which means they when designing the army have designed it to work within that frame, some armies will have worse troop choices because their Elites may be amazing, others may have naff Heavy but great Fast Attack.

The only army that benefits from your almost draconian limits on what people bring would be Necrons because - lets face it, what else do they need other than 1HQ (Lord w/res orb) 1 Heavy (Monolith) 6 troops (Max Warrior Squads)

I appreciate your trying to bring forth ideas to fix a problem - however I disagree with your method - some armies get hit really hard by it others benefit - that's not balanced, that's just changing the unbalancing to benefit a different list.

- McPherson

Deadnight
07-09-2008, 23:10
well, 0-1 choices dont work. if its a "broken" unit, now all i do is take something else. 0-1 holofalcons? fine. i'll take wraithlords. 0-1 hammerheads? broadsides. Unless you want to screw over all forms of list creativity, be a fascist and say "That is the list im allowing you to play. you cant take this, you cant take this, you can only take one of this, this and this" and then i walk away, demand a refund, and get drunk elsewhere :)

Composition doesnt work. % limits on FOC slots sounds cool, or % bonuses for being "fluffy" and taking 1 troops choice per each non troops again favours certain armies. My tau need their 3 heavies and 3 elites to be competitive. otherwise im stuck with an str5 gunline with no anti armour. marines get to laugh at me with all their buried lascannons in their troops squads. see where im going? Limits on how i can design my army are the same as limits on what i can take in my army.

Same with cool scenarios. a "fog" scenario that hurts ballistics armies just gives another bump to fast assault units in a game that is still too fast and too assault focused as is. a "squishy mud" scenario simply favours camping marine armies. its no fun really.

Favouring sportsmanship is another tricky area. as a "longbeard" why do i want to give people marks? Punish people for being dodgy players, dont reward them. the latter is too abusable.


What i did that mixed it up a bit in the last tourney i ran was i gave out secondary mission objectives to every player at the tournament for each game. in the end i think it helped the game. there were things like "decapitation" where you had to kill the enemy HQ, or else "holdout" where you had to have one scoring troops choice at the end of it.

IMO the only way to balance tournaments is to play chess. have one army list that plays in one way.

Staurikosaurus
08-09-2008, 10:28
In addition to what the other posters have said about the 0-1 restriction, I'd like to add my own two cents (as no one commented on the tourney restrictions I posted early on in this thread).

Some armies would greatly benefit from the 0-1 restriction on all but troops over others. Most specifically I'd say CSM would have a field day. 6 different Troop choices in the army, each designed towards a different purpose. Few if any other armies have so many options in their Troop choices. Regular CSM designed to assist where you like, Plague Marines to take and hold, Noise marines for anti horde firepower, Khorne Berserkers for mad assaults, Thousand Sons for anti MEQ and daemons to drop in and contest and claim. Such restrictions on other armies would put them at a disadvantage IMHO against such variability.