Ok guys,

Who fancies a tournament in February? Let me know by posting "in" (or something to that effect) in your reply.

I'm thinking a doubles tournament would be a bit of a laugh. I want to keep it short - maybe 3 games, then we can get it done in a day easily & everyone gets a game.

I've created a confusing poll, so here's what you do - look at the questions below & use your 3 votes to answer the poll above - 1 answer per question (Nige - don't get confused and use all your votes on question 1 ).

The poll will be open for 2 weeks & you can change your mind if someone else gives you a reason to! In the meantime any opinions are gratefully received & disregarded

Question 1:
How many points per player should the tournament point limit be?
a) 500pts per person
b) 750pts per person
c) 1000pts per person
d) 1500pts per person

Question 2:
Should we use the normal FOC restrictions for each player, or modify it (add details of how modified in a post - for example 1 HQ mandatory, 1 Troop mandatory, up to 6 troops, up to 3 FA, up to 3 heavy)?
i) Normal FOC restrictions per player
ii) Modified FOC per player

Question 3:
How should teams be decided?
v) Teams get together before the tournament starts & stay together throughout the tournament
w) Teams are randomly drawn on the day & stay together throughout the tournament
x) Teams are randomly drawn on the day & are changed each round randomly
y) Teams are randomly drawn on the day & are changed each round based on results (give details on how you'd like this done - best & best or best & worst seem the obvious)
z) Teams are decided by some other method

People interested in taking part:
Ljundhammer
KMB
Matt
Stunty
Baragash
WolfLordHavoc
Socaddict
Spack
Red devil
King (plus others?)
Herne? (plus others? - only on Saturday!!!!!!)

OK - go

Me obvs

Me next,
Reasons..

Modified FOC.. I was thinking that an HQ didn't have to be required in 1000,
(Radical variant of my idea is 0-1 HQ and 0-1 Heavy.. But that might just penalise other lists, so I'm not formally advocating that far)

Drawing partners on the day randomly avoids super exploitations, but also sticking together can be a jedi/padawan learning thing, (whereas otherwise its just..that bloody king pulling down my VPs each round )

You could do with some allies rules dude.
1) Wargear and traits are for yourself only? (don't phermone trail that landraider.. don't use brother corbelo to fix a wounded carnifex etc) or works your partner.. as its randomised putting points into it is a bigger gamble.
2) In close combat? you do not assualt your allies. But if you lose combat they presumably take leadership tests based on team mates total score?
3) Blasts scattering into combat..are wyswyg allocated?
4) shooting into a combat that you are not in..randomised/ or proportionately allocated or just not allowed? (example.. 1 guardsman is left against 9 beserkers.. this has to sit for a full rotation of the game? or player C shoots 10 wounds, 1 on everyone in the combat, or d6 each one and on a 1 the guardsman has to save.
5) normal rolled for deployment? Corners?
There must be an FAQ on multiple combats somewhere...
I know your already on top of all that

750 points per person. 1000 might work, but it might get a good deal slower with 4 separate 1000 point forces.

Modify the FoC for each person. When I played in conflict South West in 2007, which was a doubles tourney, the two forces combined could fill a single standard FoC. Each force had to fill one troops, and there had to be at least one HQ. I think it also had some stuff about not being able to take more Elites/FA/HS than troops too, but I can't recall exactly. There was some nice stuff about "linked" allying armies being able to have all the compulsory troop choices come from one player (typically it was similar forces, so orks and orks or orks and speed freaks, marines and marines, marines and IG, etc)

Treat the two sides (each pair) as a single force. So multiple combats are treated as normal combats, and the overall results stand on a per side basis, exactly as if a normal, 2 player game had two units from each side involved in a single combat.

My thoughts (and votes)
- 750 points so two make up the standard 1500 point game so we are not pushed for time
- Modified FOC... I'd suggest using the Combat Patrol rules for this (http://www.patrolclash.org.uk/). For those armies which have issue with the CP rules, use the guidelines and suggestions in that link and post your solution here for peolpe to vote yay or nay. I'd also suggest that lists are posted in advance so people can see what's being thrown into the mix... although you will not know what list you are partnering with until the day.
- Teams are randomly selected at the start of the day but stick together

Wargear and abilities only affect your models... not your allies, even though you are on the same side. Other than that, you play as though you were one army so there are no issues with multiple combats, shooting friends etc (as Socaddict says).

Running for a single day only sounds good. That means the other one (or two for those staying to Monday) are free for challenge games, Apoc or AI etc as arranged.

Oh, I almost forgot... I'm in

ME!!!
and good luck to whoever gets me as a partner lol.

750 points - allows for fast games etc

Mod FOC - basically follow the Combat Patrol Rules (include modifed Combat patrol rules that Matt alluded to)

Random Partner for the duration please - get to potentially get to know another AoSer and it will be easy to work out the result at the end of the day. Perhaps make sure that people from the same 'group' are kept apart - E.G. Matt and I don't end up together.

Interesting...

I'm not convinced that 40k in 40mins rules scale that well to 1500pts... I was thinking of the following per 750pts:
0-1 HQ
1+ troops
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast attack
0-2 Heavy support

No restrictions on vehicle armour/weaponry, no armour save restrictions, no max wounds.

Special rules affect each 750 point block from which it is chosen (this is to stop SM characters stacking bonuses etc - I know the wording's loose, but lets play RAI;)). I'm undecided on character special rules - I'm thinking of a jump pack chaplain joining a flyrant , but that does seem extreme!

Vehicles can only transport eligible squads from their 750 point allocation, not their 'allies' (mostly to stop genestealers in a Land Raider!)

Do we need more extra rules?

Cheers guys

Ljundhammer wrote:0-1 HQ
1+ troops
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast attack
0-2 Heavy support

Do we need more extra rules?

interesting thats the proscriptive extreme I was shy of advocating..
How do things which don't fill a slot work in that..(easiest example) can lessor summoned demons counts as the troop, or are you saying the greater demon can be taken on top of a lord?
You all know that CP can be borkenz anyway..
I'll have to take chosen instead of havocs

The CP rules only have to scale to 750.. twice

Of the three things, I can be swayed on that one. I think a combined force of 1500 and random partner you then stick with though are the way to go.

killmaimburn wrote:

Ljundhammer wrote:0-1 HQ
1+ troops
0-2 Elite
0-2 Fast attack
0-2 Heavy support

Do we need more extra rules?

interesting thats the proscriptive extreme I was shy of advocating..
How do things which don't fill a slot work in that..(easiest example) can lessor summoned demons counts as the troop, or are you saying the greater demon can be taken on top of a lord?

How is that extreme?

Anyway, from your CSM examples, I can't see any problem. Lesser daemons count as troops, but don't take slots, as with a regular FoC, and would act the same way here. I can't see a reason to enact an override in our case to the Greater Daemon rules when you can have 3 HQs in an normal FoC.

I think you are looking for loopholes that don't exist If you have to think too hard, you're doing it wrong - it'd be exactly the same as the normal FoC, but with slightly reduced numbers.

mattjgilbert wrote:The CP rules only have to scale to 750.. twice

Of the three things, I can be swayed on that one. I think a combined force of 1500 and random partner you then stick with though are the way to go.

I think I'd like to shy away from the CP rules, as at 1500pts (which is the current top vote) they seem too restrictive (no dreadnaughts seems a little over the top).

There does seem to be a concesus forming on random teams which stick together though - that makes life a little easier!

Ljundhammer wrote:How is that extreme?

proscriptivly extreme should I have said prescriptive?..Over legislating..
Thats all, Like saying you may only take any unit (in any form) once.. Looks good, until you get to the codexs that only have 1 good option. Same kind of ballpark.
But as I say i was on the edge of recomending it myself..I just wanted to expand on why I didn't.
Chaos.. no I was insidiously stating an direct intent and asking the judge in advance if I could start building it, within their intended ruleset.I wanted to clarity on a list I have in my head, that may or may not come out. ..

Add me to the interested list. I can bring a multitude of crap, uncompetitive lists, with units that fail miserably and no tactical awareness.

Spack wrote:Add me to the interested list. I can bring a multitude of crap, uncompetitive lists, with units that fail miserably and no tactical awareness.

Let's hope we don't get drawn together then!

I'm up for this. Voted, but in summary:

1. 750pts for speed (to get through the tourney and get a conclusion
2. I like the system whereby you have to pick one of every FOC type before being able to pick a second of any type... failing that, standard FOC
3. Random draw on the day and stay together - provides a new challenge and a chance to learn/progress