Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 tauist wrote:
2000 points and 2 formations max (+1 Titan or Knight formation) sounds like a reasonable approach for tournament play. Larger games than that will take far too long to resolve anyways.

Not enforcing a formations cap in a tourney setting is just asking for trouble.. 70 point SA formations anyone? Cheesefest in the making.. I mean, was it not already established that the game is unbalanced in terms of points effectiveness? If you dont cap formation amounts, WAAC tryhards will just push that problem over the top, because they can always just spam a min sized new formation to get access to the more OP detachments

I also dont see how it would be unreasonable to demand "all models must be easily identifiable in terms of formation it belongs to", even in 40K tourneys they usually have a strict WYSIWYG requirement no? And still people manage just fine.. In the Epic of olde, stands had these flags on them, you could add something similar to LI (heck, you could even magnetize em so you would be able to use a specific model in any future formation)

So basicajly every marine list is same. And people can't use predators and sicarans same time.

Also is formation spam that powerful as each breaks so easily...

40k tournament, btw don't require squad markings. Wysiwyg is about weapons. In li terms equivavent is model has heavy bolters it plays as heavy bolter. Not lascannon.

And 40k requires trust betwenn plavers to work. Hardly unreasonable li needs as well. Weird if you can trust 40k player but not li. I expect i can trust more li than 40k.

If 2 formations feels to restrictive, what number wouldn't? And dont tell me there cannot be any sort of formation cap


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
2000 points and 2 formations max (+1 Titan or Knight formation) sounds like a reasonable approach for tournament play. Larger games than that will take far too long to resolve anyways.

Not enforcing a formations cap in a tourney setting is just asking for trouble.. 70 point SA formations anyone? Cheesefest in the making.. I mean, was it not already established that the game is unbalanced in terms of points effectiveness? If you dont cap formation amounts, WAAC tryhards will just push that problem over the top, because they can always just spam a min sized new formation to get access to the more OP detachments

I also dont see how it would be unreasonable to demand "all models must be easily identifiable in terms of formation it belongs to", even in 40K tourneys they usually have a strict WYSIWYG requirement no? And still people manage just fine.. In the Epic of olde, stands had these flags on them, you could add something similar to LI (heck, you could even magnetize em so you would be able to use a specific model in any future formation)

So basicajly every marine list is same. And people can't use predators and sicarans same time.

Also is formation spam that powerful as each breaks so easily...

40k tournament, btw don't require squad markings. Wysiwyg is about weapons. In li terms equivavent is model has heavy bolters it plays as heavy bolter. Not lascannon.

And 40k requires trust betwenn plavers to work. Hardly unreasonable li needs as well. Weird if you can trust 40k player but not li. I expect i can trust more li than 40k.

Every marine list is already very samey in tourney scenes, is it not? Don't see any huge change there..
Can't use Predators and Sicarans at the same time? Last I checked, Legion Armoured Company gives you both as Core detachments, you tripping?

well 40k doesn't need squad markings because each squad is a thing on its own, you don't have to group your list into collections of four/five units and then track casualties in those groups - just at individual squad level

and yes a lot of 40k marine lists are very samey, I'm not sure that lack of variation is specifically one of the good points of the game though

As I've said, make tracking this the players problem, have a few "accepted" ways to do it that promote clarity and reduce confusion, and just run with it

leopard wrote:


As I've said, make tracking this the players problem, have a few "accepted" ways to do it that promote clarity and reduce confusion, and just run with it

If your a TO it's not much to stat in your tournament info packs/event page/whatever a few sentences stating that players are expected to have a way to manage the admin in an appropriate fashion, whether it's the paint job or some marker by each detachment. If they want to take part in a game where distinct formations are important, then they need to acomodate that in their plans.

MarkNorfolk wrote:

leopard wrote:


As I've said, make tracking this the players problem, have a few "accepted" ways to do it that promote clarity and reduce confusion, and just run with it

If your a TO it's not much to stat in your tournament info packs/event page/whatever a few sentences stating that players are expected to have a way to manage the admin in an appropriate fashion, whether it's the paint job or some marker by each detachment. If they want to take part in a game where distinct formations are important, then they need to acomodate that in their plans.

thats essentially what I mean, list a few ways you are happy with and let players pick one

Really interesting discussion on this topic. I will say this problem isn't unique to this system, some of the ideas that Leopard proposed (of colour coding and marking on bases) I have seen used in FoW events because you need to track casualties from specific units. But it has always been a big problem, I have actually seen two guys (who were both lovely blokes and usually very friendly with each other) actually almost come to blows in what was meant to be a fun-narrative event (!) because we couldn't be sure which casualties some commando units, scaling some bunkers in the Normandy landings, had sustained - and the result would literally decide the game. So this sort of thing can be really important, and by no means is it unique to Legions.

Going back to old-Epic: In SM2 we used to use the unit cards and place the casualties themselves on the company cards as they were inflicted. It was still some record-keeping, but you then checked against this. As the cards aren't an integral part of this game, as they were with SM2, perhaps have a piece of paper and check-list in this case, or something like the system Apologist noted above?

In summary, after reading some of the above, I do *not* think this game is suited for competitive, tournament play (and by that, the sort where 3rd party validation might be needed). Fine for friendly tournaments or loose narrative games where you just trust players to keep track of casualties, but not something that needs iron-shod record keeping. In the same way weapon loadouts and WYSIWYG apply, it's just too hard to keep track of which one of 19 loadout combinations and side sponsors a vehicle has, considering the size of that 8mm scale vehicle, when I am looking across the board at it. You get some dirty-as-hell comp tournament players, not many but some, and they would just have way too much free reign - suddenly the Predators side sponsor weapons transform - Obliterator-like - into an anti-infantry weapon as they approach them. And without a ridiculous amount of book-keeping it just wouldn't be possible to fully police.

issue with "put models on the cards", which is what the rules seem to imply for garrison and transports, is simple "where do you put the cards?" which was one of the initial problems. takes a bit of space and you don't want them on the field of play.

I'm going with WYCQSIWYG* simply because I'll confuse myself if I don't, I accept others go differently, we have a shell game player locally but otherwise its mostly "all predators are this configuration today" stuff


* What You Can't Quite See Is What You Get

SU-152 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

leopard wrote:


there is another option for an event that could also work, or at least make life easier: stick in a maximum number of allowed formations

THIS

In the end it is going to be the best approach.

PS also, that will make formations bigger, and there will be less spam of certain detachments...

Can limit formations but that doesn't get rid of the problem until you limit it to 1 formation, the problem starts the moment you have 2 or more formations. I also want to point out, formations limit like nothing. I can make a single formation that is worth over 3000pts and contains 42 tanks, I don't think formations limit anything in a game where every formation allows the maxing out of every single detachment other than hq. Like the super heavy detachment is 6 super heavies max... that's not really limiting much. 3 identical formations is 9000pts... so even if I limited formations, it doesn't really limit anything. The game already has built in discounts for adding to existing detachments instead of forming new ones and that starts right away with any formation.

For **** sake, yes it helps.

Limiting the number of formations reduces the book-keeping of casualties you and I are complaining about.

And prevents spamming of support/rare slots.

Until its limited to 1 and only 1 the problem remains. If you divide a parking lot into a and b you actually have to know if you parked in a or b, this is the problem. My solution was combining the breaking points of all formations into one number and essentially one formation to get around this problem of having to mark all models to designate formation. That's a solution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkNorfolk wrote:

leopard wrote:


As I've said, make tracking this the players problem, have a few "accepted" ways to do it that promote clarity and reduce confusion, and just run with it

If your a TO it's not much to stat in your tournament info packs/event page/whatever a few sentences stating that players are expected to have a way to manage the admin in an appropriate fashion, whether it's the paint job or some marker by each detachment. If they want to take part in a game where distinct formations are important, then they need to acomodate that in their plans.

And as a TO I'm telling you that's not tenable. full stop. Not to nitpick you example either, but its not even realistic in itself or useful, everyone having their own bespoke record system isn't an objective system or standard for all players and even if there was one system being put foward by an event, why would people paint or mark every single one of their models just to attend an event? It's a big enough ask to just have hem bring painted models have the time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Really interesting discussion on this topic. I will say this problem isn't unique to this system, some of the ideas that Leopard proposed (of colour coding and marking on bases) I have seen used in FoW events because you need to track casualties from specific units. But it has always been a big problem, I have actually seen two guys (who were both lovely blokes and usually very friendly with each other) actually almost come to blows in what was meant to be a fun-narrative event (!) because we couldn't be sure which casualties some commando units, scaling some bunkers in the Normandy landings, had sustained - and the result would literally decide the game. So this sort of thing can be really important, and by no means is it unique to Legions.

Going back to old-Epic: In SM2 we used to use the unit cards and place the casualties themselves on the company cards as they were inflicted. It was still some record-keeping, but you then checked against this. As the cards aren't an integral part of this game, as they were with SM2, perhaps have a piece of paper and check-list in this case, or something like the system Apologist noted above?

In summary, after reading some of the above, I do *not* think this game is suited for competitive, tournament play (and by that, the sort where 3rd party validation might be needed). Fine for friendly tournaments or loose narrative games where you just trust players to keep track of casualties, but not something that needs iron-shod record keeping. In the same way weapon loadouts and WYSIWYG apply, it's just too hard to keep track of which one of 19 loadout combinations and side sponsors a vehicle has, considering the size of that 8mm scale vehicle, when I am looking across the board at it. You get some dirty-as-hell comp tournament players, not many but some, and they would just have way too much free reign - suddenly the Predators side sponsor weapons transform - Obliterator-like - into an anti-infantry weapon as they approach them. And without a ridiculous amount of book-keeping it just wouldn't be possible to fully police.

WYSIWYG is easy to police, it's objective unlike player's bespoke record and marking systems to track formations, i may not know intrinsically what a yellow triangle with a number indicates but i can sell a lacannon from a heavy bolter no problem. It's an easy standard to set too in terms of an event.

I'd actually go further and try and mandate weapon loadouts be the same in detachments to save time. There's crunchiness and there's making the entire game a headache for no reason.

mandating mono-load outs and "only one formation" means you are essentially playing a different game

mixed loadouts are very useful, allows adding some point defence to strike units

leopard wrote:
mandating mono-load outs and "only one formation" means you are essentially playing a different game

mixed loadouts are very useful, allows adding some point defence to strike units

Allowing two loadouts then, but unlimited is insane, the malcadors have 36 different possible weapons loadouts. In a 3000pts single formation list you could have 5 maxed out detachments of 6 each and still not have a single one with the same loadout. I'm not saying there's any incentive to be that obtuse but it really is a problem. Two different loadouts maybe, unlimited is insane. Understand I'm saying this not in a vacuum but in the context of people arguing that wysiwyg shouldn't even matter to begin with. There are pitfalls too if every tank in your list is identical (just in terms of spacing/confusing where one detachment starts and ends if operating closely). Same time if every unit of tanks is massively mixed it can be difficult to tell where they start and end as well. I absolutely get people who do small unit marking just for that reason alone before any consideration to formation markings.

As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

just because they have that many combinations doesn't mean you will see that, you are only going to see variations within a unit where there is a viable tactical reason to do so

and as you note, its on the model so keeping track is easy

you also at an event can go for a nice clear statement "all models must be equipped with weapons they are using", or state that any unit with varied load outs must be as modelled

the unit marking and formation marking thing really isn't a massive issue, this has been a "problem" historical games have managed quite well with for decades, ditto other sci-fi and fantasy type games

and as noted the moment you put limits on the number of formations you are in effect banning Solar Auxilia armies as they require the HQ units to function

MarkNorfolk wrote:
As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

What about every player having their own subjective system of marking units is tenable? I could tell you a number or colour designate anything. "Oh uh today purple triangles mean this formation." If you have to consult me, a player in your event, for intrinsic knowledge a to to try and unravel a dispute or help solve a problem like models in the wrong dead pile there's basically no ability for oversight or transparency and we're right at "trust me, bro" the person who may be cheating or have a terrible memory or constantly putting units from the wrong formations in the wrong dead piles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
just because they have that many combinations doesn't mean you will see that, you are only going to see variations within a unit where there is a viable tactical reason to do so

and as you note, its on the model so keeping track is easy

you also at an event can go for a nice clear statement "all models must be equipped with weapons they are using", or state that any unit with varied load outs must be as modelled

the unit marking and formation marking thing really isn't a massive issue, this has been a "problem" historical games have managed quite well with for decades, ditto other sci-fi and fantasy type games

and as noted the moment you put limits on the number of formations you are in effect banning Solar Auxilia armies as they require the HQ units to function

My point is some units have literally a and b options and some have 36 possible flavours, there's a vast gulf between those two for people are a bit touched to have some silly combinations. A unit of 6 malcadors with 2 different loadouts is very different than 6 we can agree? We can also likely agree that try as they might the touched can really over complicate units with binary options like contemptor dreadnoughts or tarantulas, that both only have 2 weapon options.


I think a couple loadouts in a detachment is ok, but it gets silly with 6 heavy tanks like baneblades/kratos/malcadors.


The unit marking thing is a big issue for me, the massive influx of people into LI means im trying to make it work locally for players coming from 30k/40k not just people who have been exclusively playing flames of war or other historicals for the past few years.

Limiting formations isn't that limiting even for solar aux. Lets say its limited to 3 formations, that's plenty. As I've said a few times, formations might limit aux's ability to have hq/tank commanders but its not exactly limiting anything else, 1 formation of solar aux tanks can be 3015pts, 30 macladors, 12 baneblades. I think it's more about point level first then figuring out what makes sense. Could easil see 1-3 faction formation, 0-1 allied formation, 2000pts.

 Crablezworth wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

What about every player having their own subjective system of marking units is tenable? I could tell you a number or colour designate anything. "Oh uh today purple triangles mean this formation." If you have to consult me, a player in your event, for intrinsic knowledge a to to try and unravel a dispute or help solve a problem like models in the wrong dead pile there's basically no ability for oversight or transparency and we're right at "trust me, bro" the person who may be cheating or have a terrible memory or constantly putting units from the wrong formations in the wrong dead piles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
just because they have that many combinations doesn't mean you will see that, you are only going to see variations within a unit where there is a viable tactical reason to do so

and as you note, its on the model so keeping track is easy

you also at an event can go for a nice clear statement "all models must be equipped with weapons they are using", or state that any unit with varied load outs must be as modelled

the unit marking and formation marking thing really isn't a massive issue, this has been a "problem" historical games have managed quite well with for decades, ditto other sci-fi and fantasy type games

and as noted the moment you put limits on the number of formations you are in effect banning Solar Auxilia armies as they require the HQ units to function

My point is some units have literally a and b options and some have 36 possible flavours, there's a vast gulf between those two for people are a bit touched to have some silly combinations. A unit of 6 malcadors with 2 different loadouts is very different than 6 we can agree? We can also likely agree that try as they might the touched can really over complicate units with binary options like contemptor dreadnoughts or tarantulas, that both only have 2 weapon options.


I think a couple loadouts in a detachment is ok, but it gets silly with 6 heavy tanks like baneblades/kratos/malcadors.


The unit marking thing is a big issue for me, the massive influx of people into LI means im trying to make it work locally for players coming from 30k/40k not just people who have been exclusively playing flames of war or other historicals for the past few years.

which is why if you, as an event organiser, have an issue with it then you, as an event organiser, can stipulate in the event pack what is and is not acceptable at your event, with regard to unit markings, formation markings, how models are made and equipped, variations etc

and it doesn't matter if players have only played 40k, if they are moving to a game where formation marking in some way matters (which used to for 40k when you had formations with their own rules that only applied to those units remember) then there seems little point re-inventing a wheel when this is more or less a solved problem for other systems

though admittedly systems where people taking a paint & brush to a model is not something that has to be stated, its just what you do

the ways to make bases of infantry are legion, coloured dots, printed labels on the rim, on the underside, coloured markings on the models, any combination and more, many games require this sort of tracking, and get played at events, and seem to manage

the idea that a model is deployed as what its a model of is usually accepted as normal too outside 40k, and even then the idea that "these Panzer IIF are actually Panzer II Luch" is generally fine as you seldom have them together.

Heck I've got 6mm Napoleonic where knowing two types of infantry with near identical models apart matters, with different painted trousers and markings on the base - and its fine, its easy to track who is commanded by who as well.

is this a problem? yes it is, but its not one without solutions

and once you have people willing to cheat all bets are off anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and yes a unit of six tanks with one loadout, with a mix of two load outs and all six being different is in theory a problem, right up until you stick in an event note that units must be modelled as they are armed, or that all instances of a single model across the entire army must have a single configuration if the models vary otherwise.

 Crablezworth wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

What about every player having their own subjective system of marking units is tenable? I could tell you a number or colour designate anything. "Oh uh today purple triangles mean this formation." If you have to consult me, a player in your event, for intrinsic knowledge a to to try and unravel a dispute or help solve a problem like models in the wrong dead pile there's basically no ability for oversight or transparency and we're right at "trust me, bro" the person who may be cheating or have a terrible memory or constantly putting units from the wrong formations in the wrong dead piles.

If you are that worried about cheating i hope you never ever play in any miniature tournaments. They all require trust to work and i could cheat in every one of them in ridiculous level.

If you can't trust your opponent no miniature game whatsoever works.

Hell even game like go requires trust unless you have 3rd person watching over. Just you and me? You need to trust me not to cheat to play the game.

tneva82 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

What about every player having their own subjective system of marking units is tenable? I could tell you a number or colour designate anything. "Oh uh today purple triangles mean this formation." If you have to consult me, a player in your event, for intrinsic knowledge a to to try and unravel a dispute or help solve a problem like models in the wrong dead pile there's basically no ability for oversight or transparency and we're right at "trust me, bro" the person who may be cheating or have a terrible memory or constantly putting units from the wrong formations in the wrong dead piles.

If you are that worried about cheating i hope you never ever play in any miniature tournaments. They all require trust to work and i could cheat in every one of them in ridiculous level.

If you can't trust your opponent no miniature game whatsoever works.

Hell even game like go requires trust unless you have 3rd person watching over. Just you and me? You need to trust me not to cheat to play the game.

They don't require trust to tell a lascannon isn't a missile launcher, though. I trust but verify, if I can't verify, there goes trust. None of this is a reason to actively have less objectivity and more systems rife for abuse. I've met plenty of people who have destroyed trust in the context of wargaming, plenty of "that guys". Or pehaps everyone is just assumed to be a perfect angle, that's not been my experience of humans or their patterns of behavior. Just like the walking projection of the people who can't stop talking about "competitive" games and and how winning and losing is destoying their hobby while trying to hide the very real emotional response they have to losing. We have all types in wargaming, for better or worse.

leopard wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

MarkNorfolk wrote:
As a TO I think it is tenable, full stop.

I really think this is blowing it out of proportion, and that each community and TO will settle on their own system. Not to mention the 99.9999% of players, who will never see this forum.

What about every player having their own subjective system of marking units is tenable? I could tell you a number or colour designate anything. "Oh uh today purple triangles mean this formation." If you have to consult me, a player in your event, for intrinsic knowledge a to to try and unravel a dispute or help solve a problem like models in the wrong dead pile there's basically no ability for oversight or transparency and we're right at "trust me, bro" the person who may be cheating or have a terrible memory or constantly putting units from the wrong formations in the wrong dead piles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

leopard wrote:
just because they have that many combinations doesn't mean you will see that, you are only going to see variations within a unit where there is a viable tactical reason to do so

and as you note, its on the model so keeping track is easy

you also at an event can go for a nice clear statement "all models must be equipped with weapons they are using", or state that any unit with varied load outs must be as modelled

the unit marking and formation marking thing really isn't a massive issue, this has been a "problem" historical games have managed quite well with for decades, ditto other sci-fi and fantasy type games

and as noted the moment you put limits on the number of formations you are in effect banning Solar Auxilia armies as they require the HQ units to function

My point is some units have literally a and b options and some have 36 possible flavours, there's a vast gulf between those two for people are a bit touched to have some silly combinations. A unit of 6 malcadors with 2 different loadouts is very different than 6 we can agree? We can also likely agree that try as they might the touched can really over complicate units with binary options like contemptor dreadnoughts or tarantulas, that both only have 2 weapon options.


I think a couple loadouts in a detachment is ok, but it gets silly with 6 heavy tanks like baneblades/kratos/malcadors.


The unit marking thing is a big issue for me, the massive influx of people into LI means im trying to make it work locally for players coming from 30k/40k not just people who have been exclusively playing flames of war or other historicals for the past few years.

which is why if you, as an event organiser, have an issue with it then you, as an event organiser, can stipulate in the event pack what is and is not acceptable at your event, with regard to unit markings, formation markings, how models are made and equipped, variations etc

and it doesn't matter if players have only played 40k, if they are moving to a game where formation marking in some way matters (which used to for 40k when you had formations with their own rules that only applied to those units remember) then there seems little point re-inventing a wheel when this is more or less a solved problem for other systems

though admittedly systems where people taking a paint & brush to a model is not something that has to be stated, its just what you do

the ways to make bases of infantry are legion, coloured dots, printed labels on the rim, on the underside, coloured markings on the models, any combination and more, many games require this sort of tracking, and get played at events, and seem to manage

the idea that a model is deployed as what its a model of is usually accepted as normal too outside 40k, and even then the idea that "these Panzer IIF are actually Panzer II Luch" is generally fine as you seldom have them together.

Heck I've got 6mm Napoleonic where knowing two types of infantry with near identical models apart matters, with different painted trousers and markings on the base - and its fine, its easy to track who is commanded by who as well.

is this a problem? yes it is, but its not one without solutions

and once you have people willing to cheat all bets are off anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and yes a unit of six tanks with one loadout, with a mix of two load outs and all six being different is in theory a problem, right up until you stick in an event note that units must be modelled as they are armed, or that all instances of a single model across the entire army must have a single configuration if the models vary otherwise.

I simply don't want to be the enemy for having to make up a marking system and tell everyone who wants to attend an even how to paint their army, not simply that it must be painted. A colour system won't work, we have players who are colour blind, a number sytsem might work but it's a big ask. AT never took off here because of the terminals, and gw selling "the good terminals" seperately on top of needing weapon cards, and finally sideboard to do all of this which a lot of store struggle to have. LI needs to be as high speed low drag as possible, that might mean playing on a smaller mat to allow more sideboard. I still see combining break numbers into a single army wide break point as a the best solution because it immediately solves the core problem for which is it completely gets rid of needing to designate each model to its home formation.





If 30k allowed a rainbow of special or heavy weapons combined in single units it'd be te same problem, thankfully the basic convention of 5-10 plasma or melta or lasguns or missile launchers prevailed. If it hadn't, someone would have had to house rule it out of sheer sanity.

I simply don't want to be the enemy for having to make up a marking system and tell everyone who wants to attend an even how to paint their army, not simply that it must be painted. A colour system won't work, we have players who are colour blind, a number sytsem might work but it's a big ask. AT never took off here because of the terminals, and gw selling "the good terminals" seperately on top of needing weapon cards, and finally sideboard to do all of this which a lot of store struggle to have. LI needs to be as high speed low drag as possible, that might mean playing on a smaller mat to allow more sideboard. I still see combining break numbers into a single army wide break point as a the best solution because it immediately solves the core problem for which is it completely gets rid of needing to designate each model to its home formation.

Well you will have to upset someone by having some way to recognise which formation each unit is part of, thats a core part of the game rules

agree a pure colour system isn't ideal, though colours combined with numbers (marked in a high contrast way) isn't a huge issue

players have to bring the models, order counters etc. some suitably marked MDF bases, as noted, marking with a sharpie works perfectly fine so there is nothing complex here) works

and HH does permit weapons to be combined, in Veteran units, same as how 40k allows it. both games seem to manage and manage without house rules.

and thats before you go anywhere near T'au units with the various drones

and combining into one break point also changes the game significantly as breaking individual formations restricts those formations

leopard wrote:
combining into one break point also changes the game significantly as breaking individual formations restricts those formations

And combining it now means every model is one more tick closer to the breaking point, so ya unfortunately you can't single out his armoured company, you can have however now really focus on squishy stuff as it all gets it closer to breaking. And here's the best part, people will actually show up and play because there's now no requirement to have a convoluted number/colour/symbols system and they can just relax, have fun, not have to worry about anything more than a single count and throw models in their case or on their display stand when they're dead. That's far more upside for me than downside.

The event would also have end game scoring not progressive, I'm ready to hear how that somehow destroys the game (joking)

Progressing scoring v end game scoring does indeed change the game, and changes it considerably, though in a way that can be structured around but the forces for it will be very different

personally adding an army break point, as well, with more than half the formations broken, would be interesting. moving to just a single army wide break point changes the game considerably

you then also have "so why would marines care that Auxilia are dying? thats what they are for isn't it?"

not to mention the casualties a unit outside their chain of command have taken may be something they are not even aware of

or the idea of having bulky, but cheap, Auxilia units that stay to the rear, largely out of sight, purely to boost the robustness of the assault troops

I see why you think its good, I respectfully disagree.

I also think its at this point a bit too early to tell just how big of an issue this is

So you dont want to be enemy yet become enemy by breaking game and dump it down while not changing that you need trust. If you can't trust your opponent single breakpoint fixes NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zero.

All you did was break game. Good job.

leopard wrote:
Progressing scoring v end game scoring does indeed change the game, and changes it considerably, though in a way that can be structured around but the forces for it will be very different

personally adding an army break point, as well, with more than half the formations broken, would be interesting. moving to just a single army wide break point changes the game considerably

you then also have "so why would marines care that Auxilia are dying? thats what they are for isn't it?"

not to mention the casualties a unit outside their chain of command have taken may be something they are not even aware of

or the idea of having bulky, but cheap, Auxilia units that stay to the rear, largely out of sight, purely to boost the robustness of the assault troops

I see why you think its good, I respectfully disagree.

I also think its at this point a bit too early to tell just how big of an issue this is

That's fair, I don't know how big of an issue it will be either. Can always add secondary objectives to each mission/scenario if need be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
So you dont want to be enemy yet become enemy by breaking game and dump it down while not changing that you need trust. If you can't trust your opponent single breakpoint fixes NOTHING. Zip. Nada. Zero.

All you did was break game. Good job.

Wonderful having you here fren, totally contributing. Please, don't go anywhere, if anything post more. The vast ocean in between will surely mean what I do with a local event with 6-8 people will completely destroy legions imperialis for all of finland, or somsething. I look forward to it. -maniacal laughter-

if you are not proposing to use the rulebook scenarios, and to be honest a willingness to go outside them is welcomed, I'd hope you were proposing to publish them ahead of time, along with any secondary scoring mechanic.

allows building an army around them

likewise I mean you can of course propose to change any core or optional rule in the game, so long as you publish that in advance too

e.g. you could decide to replace the points system entirely, and use something sensible instead that assigns costs to weapons

 Crablezworth wrote:


The event would also have end game scoring not progressive, I'm ready to hear how that somehow destroys the game (joking)

Well as historv shows it will result in players focus on killing as table enemy and go to objectives last turn is superior strategy.

Infantry loses value as their main strength is objective control which becomes irrelerant. 1 tank does job just fine when enemy dead.

So you would need to repoint every unit if you want balance but by now it has become clear you dont want balance and are just looking to make tank armies the king.

Single breakpoint, end game scoring...both ideas that favour tanks. Gee. What a coincidence...not.

I think an important question here: Did anyone read this rulebook and say to themselves "I fancy a fully comp tournament scene for this game"?

I suspect that the number would be fairly low. I would put this game down towards Necromunda (although not that bad) in terms of how suitable it is for that sort of gaming.

And if you are not doing fully comp tournaments, of the sort you get for card games or games like ASOIAF, which were made specifically with matched and tournament play in mind, then the question of people trying to fool others or cheat becomes less important.

 Pacific wrote:
I think an important question here: Did anyone read this rulebook and say to themselves "I fancy a fully comp tournament scene for this game"?

I suspect that the number would be fairly low. I would put this game down towards Necromunda (although not that bad) in terms of how suitable it is for that sort of gaming.

And if you are not doing fully comp tournaments, of the sort you get for card games or games like ASOIAF, which were made specifically with matched and tournament play in mind, then the question of people trying to fool others or cheat becomes less important.

The event would be something like


have a list that shows detachment weapon loadouts, full normal wysiwyg requirements, exceptions allowed in cases of model being damaged.


Combine formations breaking points into a single breaking point, test once for whole army when/if it happens.

Maximum 2 weapon loadouts for vehicle detachments, 50/50 where possible (some units are in 3's) This would allow for people to sill mix within detachments without going crazy and having 6 differently armed malcadors. It would also be kind to new players who may only have 2 dreads with las and 2 with kheres.

1-3 formations from your main faction, 0-1 allied fromations.

All models/armies must be fully painted.

Points level, number of rounds and board/mat size tbd but probably 1000-2000 4x4 or 4x5 depending on location/likely attendance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:


The event would also have end game scoring not progressive, I'm ready to hear how that somehow destroys the game (joking)

Well as historv shows it will result in players focus on killing as table enemy and go to objectives last turn is superior strategy.

Infantry loses value as their main strength is objective control which becomes irrelerant. 1 tank does job just fine when enemy dead.

So you would need to repoint every unit if you want balance but by now it has become clear you dont want balance and are just looking to make tank armies the king.

Single breakpoint, end game scoring...both ideas that favour tanks. Gee. What a coincidence...not.

You caught me, my only goal here was to ruin gaming, specifically in finland with my evil plot to only see tanks on the board.

leopard wrote:
there is a huge issue with limiting the number of formations though

you are essentially telling Solar Auxilia players not to enter, they need multiple formations to get the HQ units to make the army work.

indeed they quite specifically do not want a low number of large formations as thats a gateway to the bulk being outside the command range of their HQ units, and provides an easy quick kill through killing those commanders

2000 points

Marines: max 3 FMs
Solar Auxilia: max 4 FM

Problem solved!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 tauist wrote:
2000 points and 2 formations max (+1 Titan or Knight formation) sounds like a reasonable approach for tournament play. Larger games than that will take far too long to resolve anyways.

Not enforcing a formations cap in a tourney setting is just asking for trouble.. 70 point SA formations anyone? Cheesefest in the making.. I mean, was it not already established that the game is unbalanced in terms of points effectiveness? If you dont cap formation amounts, WAAC tryhards will just push that problem over the top, because they can always just spam a min sized new formation to get access to the more OP detachments

I also dont see how it would be unreasonable to demand "all models must be easily identifiable in terms of formation it belongs to", even in 40K tourneys they usually have a strict WYSIWYG requirement no? And still people manage just fine.. In the Epic of olde, stands had these flags on them, you could add something similar to LI (heck, you could even magnetize em so you would be able to use a specific model in any future formation)

So basicajly every marine list is same. And people can't use predators and sicarans same time.

.

Why is that? there are armoured companies


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is an special rule for the quick start mission released to play with the contents of the box in a matched play: no formation breaks.

that could be applied to missions in a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:



Infantry loses value as their main strength is objective control which becomes irrelerant. 1 tank does job just fine when enemy dead.

So you would need to repoint every unit if you want balance but by now it has become clear you dont want balance and are just looking to make tank armies the king.

Single breakpoint, end game scoring...both ideas that favour tanks. Gee. What a coincidence...not.

Single breakpoint does not favor tanks.

It favors masses of cheap models in the back in cover to prevent reaching break point -> probably going to be infantry, not tanks.

think the quick start is less "no formation breaks!" as much as there is only one formation per side (with everything in it)

3-4 formations in a 2k game is probably workable, though does again need a fair few more games under the belt - also to work out how long they will likely take if nothing else

leopard wrote:
think the quick start is less "no formation breaks!" as much as there is only one formation per side (with everything in it)

3-4 formations in a 2k game is probably workable, though does again need a fair few more games under the belt - also to work out how long they will likely take if nothing else

Yes but it shows even gw understands that fromation breaks are perhaps something best left for later games, and it coincides with my solution of one combined unit break number.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SU-152 wrote:


Single breakpoint does not favor tanks.

It favors masses of cheap models in the back in cover to prevent reaching break point -> probably going to be infantry, not tanks.

Yeah and it also means opponents can attempt to ignore some tank detachments where possible to put the hurt on infantry which are squishier and easier to target in hopes of breaking the army. Worth noting too this will be easier to do as both armies get more barrage weapons.

But this also fits with the end game scoring I'd be going for. If people find play is too static without progressive scoring, can add secondary objectives that spice things up and perhaps incentives to mix it up in the middle. That and maybe allow more units the ability to be kept in reserve.

 Crablezworth wrote:

leopard wrote:
think the quick start is less "no formation breaks!" as much as there is only one formation per side (with everything in it)

3-4 formations in a 2k game is probably workable, though does again need a fair few more games under the belt - also to work out how long they will likely take if nothing else

Yes but it shows even gw understands that fromation breaks are perhaps something best left for later games, and it coincides with my solution of one combined unit break number.

Or it could show they don't work in a small game with only one formation, or it could be in the grand tradition of starter games that ignore certain rules in favour of others, given it didn't occur to them to put that starter scenario in the box its not that relevant either way.

note the game size in the box is a lot smaller than any event is likely to use and as such is hardly representative anyway