40k League

Hi guys

I feel like doing something for 40k. Now I'm not so keen on campaigns for 40k as I am for fantasy (in fantasy you play through one country and your one character might fall off his horse or take a shoulder wound, but he's generally ok... well, until the entire world explodes anyway, but that's another story. Whereas in 40k, different star systems can be lifetimes away from each other. And in the meat grinder of battle, your character would probably be melted by his own plasma gun in the first 15 minutes. Hardly a great story arc there...) so when I was thinking of keeping the narrative out of this one, and just going for a little bit of competition. Though of course, running a tournament would require a time commitment few of us can make, so I was thinking a league may be a better idea.

So, here's how I think it should work. We can all sign up with a primary army (allies and the usual stuff I think shall be allowed at this point, as long as the core of the force sticks to the listed army... unless people would like to run a single faction league? That is open for debate for now...) and everyone plays everyone else twice. This will take course over a long relaxed time period, it will be as easy as saying "Hey Ron I'm free next week, fancy a game? Shall we make it one of our two league games?" There will be a listed home team and away team and each will have advantages which will be explained later. I have tried to keep it balanced, but if you think what I have written as the advantages somehow break the game and make one side more likely to win than the other... well everyone plays both home AND away so you're all gonna have an easy win and a tough one to try to get some points from. It should balance itself out. Anyway, 3 points for a win 1 point for a draw, see who scores most once everyone has played everyone.

Now, what about those of us who have more than one army, who may be torn over which to enter? I would like to say they can enter both. I am open to debate on this point if people wish. However, my reasoning is that while it will involve an extra set of games for the entrant to play, if they are one of the more regular attendees, they can probably get through the games as quickly as some of our more infrequent members. This will of course give that PLAYER a second chance to come top - so there will be a natural handicap. A player cannot play themselves. Therefore they shall play less games than a player who enters only a single army. In a league of ten ARMIES, if I'm the only one that entered two, each of my armies has to score the best it can from 16 games... my opponents shall score the best they can from 18. That's an extra potential 6 points someone could have over me.

Another advantage of this relaxed league system is that new entrants can be added while it is ongoing... just add an extra row to the bottom of the fixtures table, and have that person start getting games in against everyone else. Equally, if a player has played through all their games ahead of everyone else, they can enter another army if they wish and go through the fixtures again. Or, if they are top of the league, it might be best to just play friendlies and coast on the high score.

If someone wanted to drop out of the league, this too could be managed. Just delete that player and the games from the scoring - not like injuries and suspensions that effect other games. Those games that you thought were competitive now count as friendlies. You may have dropped some points, but so have others.

I figured 2k as the standard game size, although if people wish to play larger or smaller games, then that is fine as long as both players agree.

So, what are the home/away advantages?

Well, the defender has the home turf... so I have decided that he shall set up the terrain. It's still in his interest to set up a fairly balanced board, but as the defender he may have created clear firing lines and kill zones in his city... a tyranid player on the other hand would probably have vegetation running rampant.
I am also stating the defender must roll for who chooses to deploy first or second FIRST, and that he has a reroll on that roll. BUT he must choose whether or not to take the reroll before the attacker rolls. So a 1 he'll always reroll, but a 3... hmm, he might stick with that, especially if against me...
To represent his troops knowing the battlefield well, the entire defenders army gets acute senses. This of course means absolute jack shit if they don't have outflank too, but it has the chance to make some defensive units marginally more effective.

As for the attacker, well he truly has the initiative in this battle. He knows what he's here for. Therefore the attacker picks the mission. This of course is done BEFORE the defender sets up the terrain.
The attacker also gets a reroll on his "Seize the Initiative" roll.

I'm happy for comments or suggestions for all of the above, though like I said earlier, if you think the system slightly favours attacker/defender, it shouldn't matter too much, as everyone plays both. But who is interested in this idea? I'll be discussing it at the club on Tuesday, but please do comment if you're interested.

My only issue is losing your points if someone drops out. If you get some hard earned victories and lose a couple due to these beardy mech or knight players and the person you beat drops out, those victories count for nothing. If there is a max number of games you can play then why not leave those games as your all going to play the same amount even if you may have to pick another player at random to top your games up.

Well if 5 players get two games each in against someone who loses every game then drops out, and the rest of the league have to go with "random" pairings... it's hardly fair. No matter who you pick they're probably gonna do better than ten straight losses. You played a dropout who was using Codex CSM but doesn't like Heldrakes, I get a random draw of Dale and his Eldar D brigade... Hardly any fairer than just forgetting your game happened.

The max number of games is set by how many opponents there are. You play each one twice. That's the max number of games. If you played a dropout twice that's an extra two games worth of points over someone who didn't. And yes while it would be annoying that those victories counted for nothing, well for anyone else that beat them they also count for nothing... and for anyone who hasn't played them, they also count for nothing. Basically, if someone drops out, then that game you played against them was actually just a friendly, a practice game.

Given there is no planned "end date" for this I'd hope no one would drop out due to a lack of time for it or due to other commitments... as a fairly open ended goal really the only people we have to worry about dropping out are those who leave the club permanently, which doesn't happen all that often.

I'm with Rich on this one. I'd hate to have played some of my best games (and potential only wins), then lose them because someone dropped out.

Could you not have something like a cap on scoring games. So that way only the 10 would ever count, regardless of what you played? That would also give any new starters a fair chance

My only other worry is how long you expect this to run for? I'd be interested as I want to get back doing a bit more 40k. However unlike some of the other regulars I've got other games on the go such as Imperial Assault and Armada/X-Wing. So you might be waiting a very long time for some to complete all games.
In terms of new players as well, you are trying to invite them yet introducing competition, which has potential for some horrendously cheesy unbound stuff in a 2k that will crush said players.
So I don't know whether you want to kept to bound formations or such.

Rich I picked 10 games as an example number, in effect there would be almost twice as many games as there were entering armies... You play everyone twice though obviously can't play yourself. Can you think of a fairer way of handling dropouts? It seems there are several solutions:

Keep the points. If you haven't played that player yet, tough luck you miss out on potential points. Definitely unfair.

Wild Card it... introduce a random opponent for the remaining fixtures. 1, this is open to abuse by people who are far more interested in their own league position than that of the departed player, and 2, again this is hardly fair as you could draw a game against someone very new to the game while I get a game against a Veteran with lots of knights/whatever is strong that month.

Free Pass it. Give everyone who hasn't played the missing player a win for their games. Or a 2 point free pass. Or some other way of giving them free points to make up for the lack of opportunity to earn their points. Again, this seems unfair to the players who have played for and EARNED their points.

Take a sample... Have league points be scored on your best 10 results... therefore it doesn't matter if someone has a few extra games against someone who isn't here, cos as long as you've played at least ten you can get max score, potentially. Trouble with this, there'll be very little separation between the better player who can easily chalk up 10 wins out of 15-20 games.

Or, the one I recommend, say the departing player didn't count. Those games you got your hard fought victories in, sure you earn nothing for them... but neither does ANYONE else. It's not like we're taking away your personal triumph and doing nothing to the others. Anyone who has played them will get nothing, which is precisely what anyone who hasn't played them gets. Those games were just friendlies after all, test games. If "losing" the points is that upsetting to you I could keep the points secret till every fixture has been played, and do a big reveal at the end - therefore you would never drop points, as I would only put COMPLETELY FILLED fixture lines into the final league calculation. But I think a running score would be easy enough to work out anyway, and would prove more tantalising.

Again, might I stress, I find the likelihood of someone actually deciding to drop completely out of the club/hobby over the course of the league to be pretty slim. It does happen occasionally but not often. I just wanted to have something written down as a contingency plan so that this precise argument we are having now doesn't have anything riding on it - it's all theoretical so far. But if you have a good idea that hasn't already been listed above, please share it and we can potentially incorporate it.

As for your query Scott, how long is a piece of string? I don't intend to have a set end date on this. If we have 10 players sign up it will be up to those players to complete those fixtures at their leisure. Some people are not down every week, some people play multiple systems... there is no rush on this. I expect we'll have a flurry of games early on when anyone can play anyone, but later on fixture congestion will start to get in the way - we've already played our games so you go play him and er... oh I guess I'll play him at a friendly this week cos I've already played him twice too... I would recommend that anyone with other commitments maybe sticks to one army, whereas someone like Jamie who is pretty much solely 40k and attends every single week, he can easily put two armies in to give a little variety. I shall probably do the same. Towards the end once maybe 80-90% of fixtures have been played I may start encouraging the stragglers to fill in the gaps in the table, but for now I will let it go at it's own pace.

As for restrictions, this is not a tournament setting, this is a little bit of spice to the regular games we play every week. I do not expect people to suddenly switch to monstrous lists, I personally will run much the same style armies I usually do. There will be no prize beyond bragging rights to the victor, and said rights shall probably be a long time coming. So I don't think we'll see anything too nasty. On the other hand, the veterans will generally get more victories than the new players anyway. This is just a natural part of the club. The newer players will relish the upsets they cause (that will be recorded for posterity) while their main priority will be doing better than their peers... take Dan and Paul, they could come last and second to last, but whoever comes the better of those two will probably savour the victory over the other as if they'd won the entire league!

I'm in. its sounds like a a lot of fun and i do think that bragging rights will become quite an important element. I do think that bound armies should be essential, and possibly look at adding a 'for and against' points scored in games into the league (like football) so that armies on the same points at the end will have something else to go by.

I'll defiant run two armies, and i like the idea of 'limiting a maximum of 2 of the same type of unit' thing you told me about last night as this will remove spam lists (7 Daemon princes etc..), nasty formations (skyhammer) and create a reasonably even playing field.

You were joking last night about no forgeworld right????

Would you want to omit super heavies as well? If not could i run my titan with a little skitarii force (lol)?????

I agree with the idea of removing earnt points if players drop out. Whilst extremely frustrating to have points docked, it's the only fair way to apply a rule across every competitor. Could i suggest you limit the amount of players (eg if we had 7 people initially keen to join the league then have a maximum of 10 for the whole league) and also a point where we cut of new entrants, otherwise we could end up with applicants joining right at the end and everyone needing to play that one person.

Best start drawing up a few 1850 armies then.

Jamie you've mixed up my two talking points last night...

The no forge world 1850 limited duplications is for the tournament.

The league is just a way to spice up regular games. Still be 2k, bring what you like.

As for your "goal difference" idea, that is where it gets difficult. For a tournament where I shall be setting the missions and making everyone play the same missions, goal difference is achievable. If mission A has a maximum score, we can judge all competitors by that standard. But in the league the choice of mission will be with the attacker. If he's playing against a small elite army in a kill points mission, and tables him for 6 points... meanwhile another player picks a maelstrom mission and racks up a 27-12 win... how do you work out goal difference on that? One player could have tabled the other without losing a model, they get 3 for a win and 6 for goal difference. The other player could have built up a massive early lead and been clinging on to avoid a tabling, they get 3 for a win and 15 for goal difference. Not fair.

If you are worried about too many players ending up on the same points then we can look at the respective results between the two players as a decider and if that still doesn't give a winner have them play a grudge match on "neutral" ground to be the decider.

I wouldn't want to put a cap on the amount of players that enter, as if someone joins but attends frequently they could easily catch up with someone who is only playing every other week or is running two armies. A late entrant would have to play everyone twice so perhaps a system of closing the league to new entrants once every current entrant has completed more than half their fixtures? Gives people plenty of time to join in, gives people time to decide on if they want to run two armies or not, but would still leave a good amount of time for the late entrant to play catch up...

Sounds good. Put me down for two armies.

Hi Guys

You can count me in for at least one army. Just haven't decided what yet. I may do two if I cannot decide.

Can I just query one thing with you, it may be clear above and I missed it but ...

Do I need to select an army list and then use that for all the games or can I change the list for each opponent as long as I stick to the same army type?

Lists can be altered, as it is meant to be long running and as people add new toys to their armies (or a new codex drops) people can adapt them. But your core army must remain the same core army. So a Space Marine player can include guard allies one week but not the next, no problem. If he made the guard the primary detachment, problem...

My Fire Lords are ready to commence a Purging of Fire and Flame against the enemies of the (false) Emperor!

Great, but chances are they'll spend half their time "purging" their allies, cos this aint a team campaign, you fight everyone dumbass

Good, because everyone is an enemy to the Fire Lords :-D

Right, so the league will start with the following armies...

Ginge - Imperial Guard (No, I am not calling them Astra whatevatarum)
Ginge - Orks
Jamie - Space Marines
Jamie - Mechanicum? I think this may be Cult mechanicus but I will let Jamie clarify.
Adam - Necrons?
Jason - Space Marines
Dan - Space Marines
Neil - Khorne Daemonkin
Rich H - Chaos Daemons
Scott - Tyranids
Ron - Grey Knights
Son of Ron - Orks
Dale - Eldar
Tim - Orks
Rich F - Chaos Space Marines

Of course anyone can join in until such time as all entrants have completed 50% of their games. I shall keep a fixture spreadsheet updated with results and will post a summary to this topic which I will keep updated. If anyone wishes to exit the league they can do so and their results will be deleted from the spreadsheet.

Don't forget me and my Chaos (doesn't appear my post saved from last time)

Added to list... to be honest I assumed you would, but I hadn't definitely confirmed, so left you off the initial list. I imagine Rob will want in too when he recovers enough to attend frequently once more...

Mechanicus, cult mechanicus, cog boys..... whatever.....

Jamie to be fair your army is spread over three codexes I just need to know which the primary detachment is

The Main codex is Mechanicus, as both the mech and skitarii books are cult mechanicus (like all the space marine chapter books are codex astartes). My Warlord is Mechnicus so i guess that's the main point isn't it?

me and my spacewolves are in

Rob, cool.

Jamie... Well... I can see where you are coming from. The codexes are Adeptus Mechanicus: Cult Mechanicus and Adeptus Mechanicus: Skitarii. However, if we say you can bounce from one to the other at will, I would have to agree in principle to Adeptus Astartes: whatever having the same rule. Now if one week someone is Space Wolves and the next they are Blood Angels I don't think that would go down well. So I think we need you to pick a book, which I assume will be Cult Mechanicus, as that is where your warlord (and thus your primary detachment) comes from. I doubt you'd use skitarii as primary on account of their lack of an HQ choice. Given you tend to build your army from formations anyway I can't see it making too much difference to you, it just means your warlord will ALWAYS be in the Cult Mechanicus part of the army...

Can I just check... if you run two armies do you need to play yourself at some point? Probably twice for home and away?

No, you are not allowed to play yourself with any of your armies. Therefore those of us who choose to enter more armies are giving our opponents an extra two fixtures more than us to score points in. So in a 6 person league if I ran two armies I would score the best I could off 10 games (so 30 points max) while Rich with only one army would get the best he can from 12 games (so 36 points max)

Of course we have more than 6 players so the max 6 extra points likely won't make much difference, but I wanted there to be some handicap for having effectively two chances to win the league...

so you said you "think" this is how it should work ... is that a definite now or just a think still?

cant wait for this! my 1st game against Adam next week!