That is fun. I played that with a friend of mine (during the uprising, because I used a few JSA troops in my Yu Jing) . It was the campaign final and we set up maybe 800 or something per side divided in three armys and an overall cmdr. - we played on a 40K tabel 6x4' and it was quite fun. But nothing for a quick game on the afternoon or even turnament and that is, what most people prefer :-)
Just hopping in to combat group discussion for a bit, while I'm kinda ok with the 15 unit limit, personally I would like to see something like you could trade 2 regular order units (or so) to 2x irregular units each (so for example, max. 17 units: 13 regular & 4 irregular). Or, use a command token to add 1 irregular to the 15, or something like this. Something to give just a bit of leeway in list making would be nice, aside Tactical Awareness etc. With that said, I only got to play half a dozen N4 games, so not really much of an educated nor serious opinion or anything, just throwing it out there.
From a design fundamentals, a 15 models cap gives an average 20 points per model to maximize, a 20 models give a 15 points per model to maximize. A simple explanation on how N3 list building became so blunt and how everybody maximized on as cheap as possible units to fuel with orders a few expensive units, N4 with the 15 models cap created a better and more variable list building environment.
Its a treasure-trove of data, but we are still missing about 1/3rd of tournament players, who do not bother to upload their lists...
Personally, I still am yet to play a 400pts game :D For the last year or so I've been playing mostly 250pt / Limited Insertion ones - we have found them much more convenient for an after-work afternoon in regard of time required...
Some excellent posts here that have been well discussed. Especially recently on the topic of the model cap. I think Infinity works well with the 15 model cap and I’ve played Ariadna lists that haven’t suffered for lower orders since early N3. I have mild ptsd nightmares about some N2 games… I’ll be interested to see what happens in N5 but I’m hoping that there won’t be much change in the number of models allowed. As to larger games, I don’t think I’ve played anything over 300 in a very long time. As @Errhile mentions, time required is a factor in game size and our game group prefers multiple smaller games over on large game. Not to say they aren’t fun though, just that due to time needed we haven’t done a big game in a while.
I definitely think the trooper cap is a good idea, if only to manage game duration. It does feel a bit clunky, though, when the same limit is applied across all game size - 15 troopers in a 150 points games is as "dense" as 30 troopers in 300. I would perhaps advocate for only allowing one combat group for games at 200 points or less (and disallow order-stripping via command tokens as well, for these small games). Those small games could then be called, I don't know, "limited insertion"... Scaling the other way, it seems reasonable to allow two full combat groups at 400 points. You could scale order-stripping too, removing 3 orders from a group with a command token at this level.
Yes of course. But you can't take that unless playing REF. It's something that could be changed over. To me, it's appropriate for a Lt.
Oh, I personally wouldn't call it confirmed, but definitely it has been Bostria'ed, if you catch my drift. So - my guess is - most likely it is there to stay, but there might be some asterisks around it. Kind-of like reinforcements allowed Commlink +1/+2 in some cases. I dunno. At 150pts, you can get a 10-point single Group, albeit of course there's no space for elite troops, and you sometimes have to take compromises. Stripping 2 Orders off it works just as well as on any other single-Group force. Perhaps we should experiment a bit - try scaling Order removal according not to the points size, but to the number of groups? Say: 1 Group, strip 2 Orders from it. 1,5 group (Limited Insertion format up to 15 models) - strip 2 Orders off one group, and 1 Order off the other (note: no idea how to handle fully Irregular 2nd group. Which I have fiedled at times). 2 full groups - strip 2 Orders off each. * a "full" group is 6-or-more models. * A single-model Group is immune to Order-stripping (of course, we need to have some mechnaism in place to prevent exploiting it with Strategos: "I make 10 groups, each of 1 model. So you can's strip Orders off them. Then, start of my Turn, I use my Strategos to move everyone to the same Combat Group for free"). Again, just brainstorming here!
I have to point out people already complain about WIP been public information, tying up the overall model count to a LT option will be even worse.
Why so many unknown faction? For example my country has stats for last tournament only, all other ITS games are listed as unknown. And I personally logged them all in OTM, all were successfully submitted and all players had uploaded lists for all games. So why is vast majority of data missing?
upload list to the OTM SHOULD be mandatory. Failing in that should be penalised (unless you can prove is not your fault, i found sometimes my list are not recognised by the OTM and dont appear in the list)
I haven't pre uploaded any lists to any ITS events I've played in. I find that you think a blanket penalty to be a good idea shows me you do not play in a local or casual environment.
If it's a tournament and it cost money for the code, the prizes or anything else, you should upload your lists. I dont care if it's a 40 people tournament or a friendly 6 players encounter in your backyard. If it's a tournament and make your ELO change, uploaded list should be mandatory. Are you playing with your friend because you want to get some dices rolled? Ok, you dont need to create an event for that. I always uploaded list for the events, from satellites to casual special ruled tournaments, like "0 SWC tournament" or the "warcor make all the lists" tournament. It is not something incompatible. And i bet you that 99% of the spanish events have the players lists uploaded Edit: In fact, the ITS document says the player must upload their list to the OTM for the created event
Players should consider this, not uploading their lists to OTM means less data and usage for CB to identify issues and usability patterns.
Yeah, because there is one thing for for which CB is particularly known: rapidly fixing identified issues and usability patterns!
Looks like it is more a tournament organiser problem, make sure your players submit lists. I can see some players thinking "I don't want people to know which army I'm playing this tournament", then not submitting lists... That's easy to fix, make such information available only after the tournament is reported.
