Login

Username:


Password:


Remember me



Forgot Password?




 Merchandise




Non duplicate army list selections promotes balanced lists?

Discussion of anything 40K related

Non duplicate army list selections promotes balanced lists?

Postby mortiferum » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:35 pm

Is it fair to restrict army list selections to no duplicates (unless this would lead to an illegal list being created e.g. Necron Warriors)?

Would this lead to balanced lists being created?

Can this still be exploited and how (post a list to illustrate your point if you like)?

Morty

Also posted on warseer LINKY
Last edited by mortiferum on Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mortiferum
Justicar
Justicar
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2007 12:00 am
Location: UK, Oxfordshire

Postby killmaimburn » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:22 pm

Its an oldy, I strive to find a way to find balance, I sin in the arts of power.And we do power spiral up and down a bit. But I also have fluff friends who tell me if its in a book its meant to be played.
Some armies can handle non duplicates very easily, others where they only have 1 or 2 good units (and some shockers) really suffer.Or as you say necrons DA and others where you just make their list illegal.
Especially on warseer, this is normally where someone jumps up and starts shouting about you being a tau hater. :lol: .
Now that GW is really not liking options, fielding variants of a choice look sillier :? (e.g. a chaos space marine squad equipped for CC in a rhino, a chaos space marine squad with twin plas in a havoced rhino they'll never sit in and just use for fire support= the same thing and not allowed?)
I have seen some really nice lists that have been 750 pointsx2, 2 warbands in a pincer movement (all in one foc in a normal 1500 game)Fairly fun.
I have tried to stick to the slightly more used 30% troops choice, but even then after a while I had to accept it was just a standard for myself and not others, as I can put 1500 point foot slogger lists together that eat things, whilst other armies really suffer if you pay more than lip service to the mandatory slots. :mrgreen: . So I just gripe a bit if mr6 only spends 120 on troops.
A fun one us lot played with was in 1500, filling all the slots (2hq, 3 elites etc etc) It made some very strange lists, the eldar and smurfs were ridiculously hardcore (as they always end up being, no matter what you try to bind them with- and I say this as the person with the evil smurf list) , where as old chaos and necrons couldn't be done (came to around 1700 points basic). New chaos can (mainly by taking single oblits and min termies)- thats fairly ok but it relies on bikes :(
Hope you find a wise solution 8)
KMB
User avatar
killmaimburn
Now Vanus Clade
 
Posts: 6581
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Nottingham, mid-land
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Non duplicate army list selections promotes balanced lis

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:41 pm

mortiferum wrote:Is it fair to restrict army list selections to no duplicates (unless this would lead to an illegal list being created e.g. Necron Warriors)?

i think its pretty hard to say whether its "fair" or not.

it doesnt affect all armies the same, but that doesnt mean it wont affect all players the same.

theres also the issue of it restricting who can play. for example, a new player that only has a set list wont be able to play in an event which invalidates that list, where as a veteran player with a bigger collection will still be able to play. same goes for players who wont have enough painted units (where such a thing is necessary).

if a TO knew that someone had spent a year painting an army and then put this restriction in place to intentionally ruin the event for that player, then that wouldnt be fair, i dont think.

the best a TO can hope for is to implement such restrictions for the right reasons, and to let everyone know with plenty of warning (so they have time to change their lists/add to their collections/paint extra units etc).

mortiferum wrote:Would this lead to balanced lists being created?

in some cases, it might do, yes.

some units are undercosted while others are overpriced. this is usually to encourage/discourage their use.

if a player left out the most overpriced units, and took lots of the most undercosted ones, then they would essentially be playing with an army that is "worth" more than what it actually costs.

by stopping people from taking duplicate units you can stop them taking the very most undercosted one multiple times (which is the best way to get more "free points").

however, this doesnt stop them taking lots of the undercosted units in their list (unless there is only one undercosted unit, of course) - it just stops them taking multiples of the same one.

it also misses the point, if this is what the restriction is trying to achieve. it would be better to restrict undercosted units (maybe force one overpriced unit to be taken for each one, to balance things out as the designers probably intended) or to increase their cost (or apply some other penalty). of course, this relies on the TO deciding which units are undercosted (its not like GW puts that in the codex entry).

an example often given is "if they just want to stop 3 Falcon armies (etc), why not just say you cant take 3 Falcons (etc)?".

the downside of this restriction is that it stops people taking duplicates of any unit, not just those that are perceived to be undercosted. maybe this will cut down on weaker armies (that wont provide a challange for whoever plays them, being themselves unbalanced), but again, its still possible to create a "weak" army despite this rule just as its possible to create a powerful one.

another reason TOs may have for including this rule is to increase variety and try to stop games being boring/repitive. however, it doesnt quite do this either, as it is still possible to take units that behave very similarly on the tabletop without them being true duplicates - they games can still be just as boring. if this is their goal then again i feel its better to get to the point: if you dont want "boring" lists, then dont let people use them! dont create some arbitrary rule that wont actually achieve that - especially considering perfectly fluffy/exciting armies might also get stopped by it (just because you take multiples of a single unit doesnt mean they all behave the same way on the tabletop, for example).

mortiferum wrote:Can this still be exploited and how (post a list to illustrate your point if you like)?

i dont think there is anyway to exploit this restriction itself, although it is still possible to exploit "points breaks"/costing errors in a list despite the restriction.

its also very inconsistent, affecting some armies more than others (so choosing the army least affected by it would give a player a potential advantage over those using armies more affected).

also, some codex books allow one entry to create what are essentially 2 different units while others may list those units as separate entries. for example: if a SM player can take a Termi Assault Squad and a shooty Termi squad, why shouldnt a DA player be allowed to take one DW squad armed for combat and one armed for shooting?

in closing, i want to say: im all for TOs creating houserules/imposing restrictions on their players - they just need to make sure that the changes they make will actually achieve what they want them too - they need to think things out properly before making decisions. they also need to work out exactly what sort of event they want to run, what they want to reward, what they want to discourage, and what sort of atmosphere they want. the important thing is to make all this known to the (prospective) players, so that they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to join in.

hope that helps :)

~ Tim
p.s. i like the idea of fixed lists if you hope to prove who is the best general, and story points (instead of VPs) for fluffy events, for example.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

I don't think List restrictions are the solution...

Postby fyrebyrd » Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:28 pm

I have played in events where this has been tried. The organizer didn't do a good job of defining duplicate units, and hence it became abused by the person with a ton of extra options(ie. same tank one with Extra Armor). My comment on the idea of not duplicating units is that, believe it or not this really does take away from the game itself in my own opinion. I think that the best thing that an Event Organizer can do to regulate lists without taking away from what I consider the essence of the game is require a whole tourney be ran with a single "locked list". I, as the event organizer, even attempted a 3 list choice system once for a mock tourney as a test, it ended up giving the flexible armies more power than assisting the weaker armies with their lack of power, it didn't turn out the way I wanted so i scrubbed the idea(which as a suggestion this idea works well for a campaign setting, real well) When it comes to what is in the list, I would rather let the players run what is legal from the codices and require them to rate their opponents army based upon his sportsmanship[including a few questions on army list composition (power gaming/min-maxed army)]. I am one for the Event Organizer to not have a lot of say in who will come out on top of a tourney, as that can create issues beyond and during the tournament (friendships, favoritism, etc.) Isn't balance based more upon the player and less upon the lists? For example, a few years back in my gaming circle we had a 13 year old, who was/is set on IG. He had a great idea of what he wanted to run, but he lacked the generalship skills to succeed. Now he is 16 years old and alot smarter. He ended up finally placing 2nd in a recent tourney (that had no army balancing house rules). I guess my point is that this fella could have given up at any point in those three grueling years where he was an IG punching bag. But because I stress and require a large amount of sportsmanship from my players in any setting I am organizing/running,(where it could have been a league, tourney, or just open gaming) this kid is still in the game. Let me stress 3 YEARS of losing literally 95% of his games. And the sportsmanship of his opponents was what kept him coming back. He has said tons of times that he loves playing the game and winning wasn't the reason he played, but its great to win. Everyone had fun, and because of that I believe that my tourney was successful. That's my thoughts, I hope they are/were what you were looking for...
FyreByrd
Ab40k Beta Tester
www.ab40k.org
User avatar
fyrebyrd
The Unforgiven Angel
Initiate
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Central Pennsylvania, USA

Re: I don't think List restrictions are the solution...

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:45 pm

fyrebyrd wrote:I think that the best thing that an Event Organizer can do to regulate lists without taking away from what I consider the essence of the game is require a whole tourney be ran with a single "locked list". I, as the event organizer, even attempted a 3 list choice system once for a mock tourney as a test, it ended up giving the flexible armies more power than assisting the weaker armies with their lack of power, it didn't turn out the way I wanted so i scrubbed the idea

an idea i suggested for a "best general" Tournament on Warseer was to run a CP event where all the armies are provided at the venue.

the lists are fixed and paired up to make set matches (to be played on predetermined terrain with fixed deployment zones). each player gets to play 1 game with each list (swapping sides with his opponent, so they each play 2 games on the same table), so trying to balance the lists isnt an issue, and no-one can cry "cheese!". at the end you total up everyones wins (and VPs in the case of a tie) to work out the overal winner.

with this method list building, or painting, converting and building models doesnt come into who wins (which is obviously only a good thing if that is what you want out of the event). you can still have a rules/fluff quiz and awards for sportsmanship, of course.

this would work well for a games club, i think, as the club as a whole could build and own all the armies as a joint effort. :)

~ Tim
Last edited by LordMalekTheRedKnight on Fri Nov 23, 2007 12:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby fyrebyrd » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:12 pm

LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote: The lists are fixed and paired up to make set matches (to be played on predetermined terrain with fixed deployment zones). each player gets to play 1 game with each list (swapping sides with his opponent, so they each play 2 games on the same table), so trying to balance the lists isnt an issue, and no-one can cry "cheese!". at the end you total up everyones wins (and VPs in the case of a tie) to work out the overal winner

I really like the concept, here's a change in idea, same concept. Why not use that idea instead with your own armies... Once you get done using your own army switch sides and use what was against you. No need for 'community' armies(As it gets hard for some of the kids in my gaming group to invest in an army that is not entirely their's).
LordMalekTheRedKnight wrote: with this method list building, or painting, converting and building models doesn't come into who wins (which is obviously only a good thing if that is what you want out of the event). you can still have a rules/fluff quiz and awards for sportsmanship, of course.

I do see where you are coming from Tim. Your tourney idea would surely pull out the best general in all of the participants playing.

I had a small that always arises(every single time) when I didn't include some sort of painting points. It seems that in my group the trend is a slight amount of laziness, the players are all about the game and less about the models. It actually came to a vote a few months(maybe a year now) ago. There were a few that only picked their armies up on gaming days, and never had more than a polar bear in a blizzard army(all primer). The group voted to encourage more painting and modeling that points are incorporated into whatever the case maybe(tourney, league). At first as the organizer I thought this would be a negative impact on the lazy ones, but it was actually a delightful surprise, stuff started getting painted and converted. The last tourney I ran, the kid that had taken second has a 90% fully painted guard army and a really cool looking S.H.O. (and we all know that is some time taken). He was one of the lazy ones.
Did anyone ever notice how its odd that one person can start the "cheese" avalanche, and it will take the whole club to stop it...
User avatar
fyrebyrd
The Unforgiven Angel
Initiate
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Central Pennsylvania, USA

Postby LordMalekTheRedKnight » Fri Nov 23, 2007 8:42 pm

fyrebyrd wrote:I really like the concept,

cheers mate :)

fyrebyrd wrote: here's a change in idea, same concept. Why not use that idea instead with your own armies... Once you get done using your own army switch sides and use what was against you. No need for 'community' armies(As it gets hard for some of the kids in my gaming group to invest in an army that is not entirely their's).

well the reason i didnt suggest that from the off is that some people dont like others touching their models (there has been enough nonsense over Lash of Submission :roll:), let alone trusting every person in a room to play a game with them.

thats why i suggested Combat Patrol (along with it being quick to play) - you dont need many models (e.g. 20-40), so armies can be put together quickly and cheaply (MEQs = £40 for example).

the good thing is that the armies can be reused, and not just for tournaments. they can be gotten out for intro games, or for when someone doesnt have a 40K army with them, or for when youve finished a big game and dont quite have time to play another, etc.

if everyone was OK loaning their armies to the event for the day though, then yes, that would be easier. :)
to maintain fairness though, if not every competitor is donating an army, the person donating shouldnt get to write the list for what they will be bringing along - that way they dont get too much of a familiarity advantage when it comes to use their own force themselves. instead they should submit a list of what they have in their collection and the organisers should make an army list from that.

fyrebyrd wrote:I do see where you are coming from Tim. Your tourney idea would surely pull out the best general in all of the participants playing.

cheers. :D
it was the best way i could think of to make an event balanced whilst stopping it from being it boring (e.g. everyone using identical armies to everyone else). i think it would also be quite fun, to get to try out lots of different armies all in one day/weekend.

~ Tim
p.s.
fyrebyrd wrote:The group voted to encourage more painting and modeling that points are incorporated into whatever the case maybe(tourney, league). At first as the organizer I thought this would be a negative impact on the lazy ones, but it was actually a delightful surprise, stuff started getting painted and converted. The last tourney I ran, the kid that had taken second has a 90% fully painted guard army and a really cool looking S.H.O. (and we all know that is some time taken). He was one of the lazy ones.

i played in a WHFB shop tourney once, and it really prompted me to get some painting done (think i managed a 98% finished 1000 pts army, my best ever). unfortunately VC (my chosen army) suck at such points levels... and someone decided to cheese out their army too. i played a few games but no matter what i tried i kept getting butchered, so i lost interest. still have the army though, and one day i will take it up to a more appropriate level (3K, probably - enough to include some backbone in the form of Graveguard, Vampire Lord and Zombie Dragon). wont be for sometime though, as im sticking to 40K for the forseeable future.
8O :D OMG - Im a Dad - of THREE!! :D 8O
:) I am "LMTRK" on The Wizards Community and MTG Salvation
User avatar
LordMalekTheRedKnight
Lord Marmite
Lord General
 
Posts: 4876
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Stamford, Lincs, UK

Postby Socaddict » Sun Nov 25, 2007 12:29 pm

something to try to encourgae people to paint their models - my club will be holding a tourney next year. we will have one particualr rule - unpainted models can be used, but any models unpainted at the end of a game count as caasualties.

good way to encourage people to get painting.
Image
Waaargh.
Orks project log here
User avatar
Socaddict
Mekboy
Warlord
 
Posts: 802
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 12:00 am
Location: London
Medals: 2
Painting Entrant (2)

Postby chromedog » Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:46 am

We just have extra points for painting.

If the model's base isn't at least painted and flocked/sand/gravel/covered in ichor and chitin/gore/etc then they get NO points for painting.

(Only as strong as the weakest link. Let down by the base)
That is not dead which can eternal lie

and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die
User avatar
chromedog
Exarch
Exarch
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle, OZ




Return to 40K Discussion




 Social Links