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.

Since we've all had a day or so to ruminate about the new digital supplements and formations, and even longer to think about the Inquisition Codex, I felt it was a good time to bring this up. There are a number of threads talking about the effect of the new digital releases on competitive 40k, and even more talk about how this will be handled by TOs. The landscape of 40k is changing at a rapid pace, and the potential for combinations that are over-the-top is higher than ever.

To get to my main point, the best solution I've seen so far is to institute a single FOC chart that includes allies.

This options circumvents outright banning of units, nerfing Serpent Shields, limiting 2+ re-rollable saves, and cherry-picking supplements. Single FOC doesn't completely invalidate armies, but it does make it tougher to bring some of the combinations that are less than desirable for a balanced game.

What does the community think? Would you be happy to play with this option, or is it too much? Should the floodgates be opened completely, or do TOs need to step in to ensure that competitive 40k stays fun?

I think the best way to do it is to make it 2 codexes per army.

I think the best way to do it is to make it 2 codexes per army.

I like the idea of limiting armies to one hard FOC including allies. It limits some of the craziness of things like Seer Council that way. Two codices per army isn't bad, but how do you handle Formations?

Formations are not allowed unless they come from a codex the explicitly allows formations(Ex, the inquisition)
But im no TO so my idea may not be important.

Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

Will players accept this though? I'd love to see Serpent Shields putting out D3+1 shots, or Puretide, MSSS, and C&C only working on a 3+, or 2+ re-rollable saves limited to a 3+. However, I also recognize that there is a large segment of the playerbase that would not want this. While a sweeping change to the FOC won't necessarily solve everything, it may be more palatable to the average person.

MVBrandt wrote:
Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

I think the thing is here is "TRUELY BROKEN" with the pace in which rules are being released at this point, I wouldn't make quick judgments on anything. By this time next year GRey Knights might be updated and the current INQ will be gone. Who knows GW might actually get to an FAQ come the new year and all this whining about so many things could be gone.

MVBrandt wrote:
Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

Agreed

Broad bans "somewhat" hit the top builds, and usually only keep these in mind during their creation. Once you actually play under the new scenario, you start to realize you unintentionally made illegal/superbly nerfed plenty of legitimately decent/fun/fluffy/not busted armies. If you want to do a ban (or a group of TOs do) you to some extent need to sack up, state "yes, these are the units we have a problem with, and here's what we've done" rather than just doing a feel good generic ban so no one thinks they're being specifically targeted.

Currently I'm of the opinion we could use a bit of help with 2+ rerollables, and formations - the rest of the game is largely fine. Some stuff is more powerful than others, but nothing is so imbalanced you cant play around it, beyond these two, which can make the game very unfun in a hurry. Formations more so because they completely circumvent the force org chart. For instance, I'd be okay with "formations must fit in your primary matrix", or an outright ban to formations/datasheets (only for competitive play).

 tastytaste wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

I think the thing is here is "TRUELY BROKEN" with the pace in which rules are being released at this point, I wouldn't make quick judgments on anything. By this time next year GRey Knights might be updated and the current INQ will be gone. Who knows GW might actually get to an FAQ come the new year and all this whining about so many things could be gone.

Agreed. it's hard to really say. I'm not even making internal judgments about jetcouncil (which is ... right now ... truly broken) until Tyranids release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Target wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Any kind of broad-band blind change to the FOC (i.e., by limiting the # of times you can take the same unit, the # of total units you can take, etc.) will have broad unintended consequences that simply shift the bar somewhere else.

If there are TRULY broken or problem units, hit them with a scalpel that fixes or prevents the use of that unit. If you want to hit all of the presumably broken units, do so directly.

Agreed

Broad bans "somewhat" hit the top builds, and usually only keep these in mind during their creation. Once you actually play under the new scenario, you start to realize you unintentionally made illegal/superbly nerfed plenty of legitimately decent/fun/fluffy/not busted armies. If you want to do a ban (or a group of TOs do) you to some extent need to sack up, state "yes, these are the units we have a problem with, and here's what we've done" rather than just doing a feel good generic ban so no one thinks they're being specifically targeted.

Currently I'm of the opinion we could use a bit of help with 2+ rerollables, and formations - the rest of the game is largely fine. Some stuff is more powerful than others, but nothing is so imbalanced you cant play around it, beyond these two, which can make the game very unfun in a hurry. Formations more so because they completely circumvent the force org chart. For instance, I'd be okay with "formations must fit in your primary matrix", or an outright ban to formations/datasheets (only for competitive play).

This post is also full of win.

Agreed

Broad bans "somewhat" hit the top builds, and usually only keep these in mind during their creation. Once you actually play under the new scenario, you start to realize you unintentionally made illegal/superbly nerfed plenty of legitimately decent/fun/fluffy/not busted armies. If you want to do a ban (or a group of TOs do) you to some extent need to sack up, state "yes, these are the units we have a problem with, and here's what we've done" rather than just doing a feel good generic ban so no one thinks they're being specifically targeted.

Currently I'm of the opinion we could use a bit of help with 2+ rerollables, and formations - the rest of the game is largely fine. Some stuff is more powerful than others, but nothing is so imbalanced you cant play around it, beyond these two, which can make the game very unfun in a hurry. Formations more so because they completely circumvent the force org chart. For instance, I'd be okay with "formations must fit in your primary matrix", or an outright ban to formations/datasheets (only for competitive play).

Also, what many average players fail to realize at times is that bans tend to NOT affect the top players as good tournament players will always be able to identify, master and exploit the current meta. 40k could have a SINGLE codex and you'd probably still see the top players competing because it's the competition that is exciting.

Unit bans, restrictions, rule changes, etc tend to hurt the average to below average players the most because they often don't have the insight or skill into or about the game system to properly adjust. There is a reason a similar group of people win events despite them being quite different in format. The main reason I've changed rules in the past is because you can't let the game become stagnant and have the same army dominating every game (Hi 5th ed Grey Knights).. people quit and quitting means less people. GW has solved this fairly well by releasing a crap-ton content of dubious quality.

I think the thing is here is "TRUELY BROKEN" with the pace in which rules are being released at this point, I wouldn't make quick judgments on anything. By this time next year GRey Knights might be updated and the current INQ will be gone. Who knows GW might actually get to an FAQ come the new year and all this whining about so many things could be gone.

Not trying to make rash judgments, but at the same time, some kind of decision does have to be eventually made. It is impossible to bury our heads in the sand and say that things like Inquisition and Formations won't change the game in potentially troublesome ways. It is narrow minded to instantly ban them and unproductive to say the sky is falling. That being said, it is hard to look at the Tau formation and not be concerned.

Broad bans "somewhat" hit the top builds, and usually only keep these in mind during their creation. Once you actually play under the new scenario, you start to realize you unintentionally made illegal/superbly nerfed plenty of legitimately decent/fun/fluffy/not busted armies. If you want to do a ban (or a group of TOs do) you to some extent need to sack up, state "yes, these are the units we have a problem with, and here's what we've done" rather than just doing a feel good generic ban so no one thinks they're being specifically targeted.

Currently I'm of the opinion we could use a bit of help with 2+ rerollables, and formations - the rest of the game is largely fine. Some stuff is more powerful than others, but nothing is so imbalanced you cant play around it, beyond these two, which can make the game very unfun in a hurry. Formations more so because they completely circumvent the force org chart. For instance, I'd be okay with "formations must fit in your primary matrix", or an outright ban to formations/datasheets (only for competitive play).

Agreed. it's hard to really say. I'm not even making internal judgments about jetcouncil (which is ... right now ... truly broken) until Tyranids release.

The thing is, will people accept "Mike Brandt 40k", in which you personally go in and ban a 2+ re-rollable if Shadow in the Warp becomes something like "+2 to DTW rolls within 12"? What about other stuff besides Seer Council? How far do you take things? When you start changing some of the undesirable stuff, do you end up going back to buff some of the crappy stuff? Most importantly, will people agree to play this way?

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong. However, I do think in these situations, a more simple fix is better in that it remains more appealing. With such a niche hobby, that fact must be considered. I'm not so crazy as to ever believe in one unified tournament ruleset, but I do think that it is easy to get a large community to accept broad changes. We don't see much double FOC--1999+1 or 1850 became the quickly accepted norm. I'm not confident that one TOs personal noodling with the rules will have that same impact outside of an event or two.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, what many average players fail to realize at times is that bans tend to NOT affect the top players as good tournament players will always be able to identify, master and exploit the current meta. 40k could have a SINGLE codex and you'd probably still see the top players competing because it's the competition that is exciting.

Unit bans, restrictions, rule changes, etc tend to hurt the average to below average players the most because they often don't have the insight or skill into or about the game system to properly adjust. There is a reason a similar group of people win events despite them being quite different in format. The main reason I've changed rules in the past is because you can't let the game become stagnant and have the same army dominating every game (Hi 5th ed Grey Knights).. people quit and quitting means less people. GW has solved this fairly well by releasing a crap-ton content of dubious quality.

I agree about the first part of your comment--top players will find a way to win. However, I don't necessarily think the second assertion is correct. Average players are definitely helped by a universal cutdown of abusive combos. Most average players want to have fun. The really cheesy stuff like Seer Council, Screamer Star, Ovessa Star, ect. are not fun to play against.

Keeping the average player interested in tournies is the way to ensure that 40k stays alive. Players who want to get to top tables will show up regardless, average people will stay away if the game gets to be Allies+allies+formation+inquisition creating combinations that are simply made to break the game.

Well I won't personally noodle anything. If I did, it'd be along with half a dozen large gt organizers or more, or not at all. I'm not interested in playing Mikehammer, and few others would be heh.

I think if you looked at a precise comp system that Mike and others are advocating, making small adjustments over time I think in the end you will have a more playable game for all.

A really example of what not to do is hand out huge buffs or nerfs ala the MMO industries. Those who make sweeping changes in short periods of time often hurt their game more than they help.

In this sense smaller RTT and GTs can be a test lab for incremental comp. Make targeted adjustments like a restriction on 2++ Rerolls. See how that is received and what the results are. TOF can also be a resource in this sense.

 Kirasu wrote:
Also, what many average players fail to realize at times is that bans tend to NOT affect the top players as good tournament players will always be able to identify, master and exploit the current meta. 40k could have a SINGLE codex and you'd probably still see the top players competing because it's the competition that is exciting.

Unit bans, restrictions, rule changes, etc tend to hurt the average to below average players the most because they often don't have the insight or skill into or about the game system to properly adjust. There is a reason a similar group of people win events despite them being quite different in format. The main reason I've changed rules in the past is because you can't let the game become stagnant and have the same army dominating every game (Hi 5th ed Grey Knights).. people quit and quitting means less people. GW has solved this fairly well by releasing a crap-ton content of dubious quality.

I think something to keep an eye on are the feelings of the majority who show up to an event with the goal of winning more games than they lose. There's always a lot of talk and focus here and other places about keeping the guys at the top tables happy, but it's the other folks that TOs really need in order to pay the bills and keep events running.

As you said, the top players will adapt regardless...but in another year will the rest continue to enjoy all-in, no comp, no restriction tourneys? I think the jury's out on that, especially considering the amount of stuff GW is probably going to throw at us in the next 12 months. You say that changes tend to make it hard for average players to adapt, but so does a rapidly evolving game that could have 3 new (and more complex) codices, 5 supplements, more special allies, and a bunch of new formations just 12 months from now.

They may love it or hate it or have no reaction...anything's possible. But again, I think it's something to keep an eye on.

As one of the posters above stated, I personally believe the best way to keep 40k playable at the tournament level is to enforce the single FOC with an allied contingent. If the allied detachments (which are clearly being made to sell existing one click bundles) are allowed into competitive play we need to just say f* it and just allow everything into tournaments because the strategy is done. Games Workshop has finally stopped pretending that they are a games company that makes miniatures and have shown their true colors. Games Workshop is a miniatures company that happens to have a rule set associated with them. It is now up to the TOs of the major tournaments to get together and come up with a fair way to keep Games Workshop from killing the competitive scene altogether.

I think we should at least try this stuff out before making any type of policy changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Gorgon

True story.

What Kimchi said.

I think precision, minimalist changes - if you do any - are still going to be the way to go, for specifically the reason Gorgon points out.

People attend tournaments for a variety of reasons, and almost no one has exactly the same reasons and expectations as anyone else. That said, there are two expectations that are a common thread throughout almost EVERY attendee ... from very laid back players to very intense competitors. They want to have a fun time and they would like to maybe win as many as they lose, or win more than they lose, or at least have a chance to. Nobody ... really ... goes in thinking "I'd just love it if I got slaughtered in every game," even if many of us go in thinking that could happen.

There are a VERY small # of issues in 40k that impact those two things across a broad cross section. One that's rising to the surface are units that move anywhere, can kill anything and have re-rollable 2+ saves (either in the form of invul, or armor/cover/4+invul), in part due to the synergy they have with the rest of their respective codices and allies (i.e., hit and run and dozens of MSU scoring jetbikes, etc.).

Trying to "fix" these very specific issues - units/army builds that are broadly perceived to be unfun to play against and/or to present the average gamer with an impossible situation in a tournament setting - with broad-band changes only serves to threaten the "fun and hope I can win more than I lose" of a much wider majority ... yeah, you may turn off that one that you targeted, but what OTHER things are you harming in the process? This is why FOC/%-type comp generally is not as successful or well-received as "EVERYTHING IS FINE except these 2 units are getting ever-so-slight tweaks." Not only are you blatantly targeting one or two builds ANYWAY, you're doing it with a giant flyswatter of "who cares what else I destroy or screw with while I'm at it," instead of (as Target says) "sacking up" and directly addressing the smaller % of actual problems (if there are any).

On a personal level, I'm more interested in TOs starting to talk and get on the same page about whether we ever even WOULD want to do anything ... and waiting to see more of the development of things (i.e., Tyranid) before discussing whether there should be any action.

I think the talk spirals out of control when you have individuals who dislike how things like Serpents, FMC, Barrage sniping, etc., impact their specific army builds or playstyles joining into the conversation and wanting to spread the ban-hammer to a range that probably is less appropriate.

Note, this is all subjective as well.

The one thing I will say is ... I don't appreciate GW's understanding of beer and pretzels gaming when they advocate that balance only matters for power gamers and competition gaming. The biggest beneficiaries of an unbalanced ruleset are power gamers and reenactment gamers, which the VAST majority of us are NOT. The average gamer best benefits from a balanced, fair game state where they can pick it up and play it to any degree and have a rough capability of doing alright regardless of the codex they pick up ... and as long as they have a rough understanding of the game. 40k isn't that by a long shot, explicitly b/c it isn't all that well balanced. It requires analysis and study to "Break" any given codex, and every codex has its sets of really really powerful units and really really bad units. By being less balanced, it's explicitly and proportionately a WORSE beer and pretzels game. The logic fails utterly when you break it down to "nobody, beer and pretzels or not, wants units that are simply bad or units that are absurdly good in any given army book or option list."

Think about it ... in a friendly beer and pretzels gaming group, you almost always have turnover and time that you HAVE to spend establishing expectations and understanding of what is or isn't "OK" to bring to the weekly game. Look at a game like Malifaux instead (M2E specifically) that's by design incredibly well-balanced ... and you can have a much more disparate "style" of gamer show up and do well without really any pre-planning or expectation-setting about "well that's cheesy, don't spam that, do this, etc." Better balance = more beer and pretzel. Less balance = more fodder for power gamers who'll take the time to parse out the imbalanced spots and exploit them.

The other thing that's worth noting is we should all keep our perspectives here. Warhammer 40k is still a characterful, radical game ... made MOST valuable by the fact a MASSIVELY higher # of players participate in it at any level than almost / really any other tabletop miniatures wargame. It provides us with phenomenal social opportunities and a ton of fun, and it still lets us compete as much as we want to.

It's fine to consider whether we as a community want to meddle in VERY minor ways with some of the more extreme components of the game, but it's probably not fine to make mountains out of molehills ... or to lose sight of why we all play in the first place (and I think there are very few people that explicitly got into the game b/c they wanted to SMARSH FACE IN ZEE TOURNAMENTZZZ).

I would honestly be ok with just banning formations, but its WAYYY to early to make any sort of ruling. Lets see what the rest of the month brings in terms of gw releases and go from there.

Worrying about what the best course of corrective action when the damage is not even close to being fully realized is like trying to operate on someone when you haven't even diagnosed them yet.

MVBrandt wrote:
Well I won't personally noodle anything.

I am left wondering what this means

Single Force Org does limit some things - but look at the armies that don't use allies. Daemons stay the same - with the same reroll 2++ ability there. Straight Eldar can be a pain still - even with the Baron out of the picture. Or heck just a One Farseer with the Warlock brood. Poor Nids are still effed by having the same ole boring force org.

It limits some things but not others.

I think we need to look at things like Magic. We want at least 5 Top Tier armies. Minimum to allow for variation. I know we all want all our toys to be good - but that isn't going to happen. From there we need to look at the stuff that sucks to play against and see what minimum changes need to be done to fix that.

I've talked about this so much and go from getting flamed and agreed with. We can go in a few directions based on what people think.

1. Limit options - IE Single Force Org, limited Allies, removing some opitions from interacting with each other.
2. Ban Options - get rid of them all together
3. Change interaction rules - You can only cast spells on your main army - not your ally. You can't join with your ally even if you are battle brothers.
4. Create a single tournament type that pushes innovation instead of stagnation.
5. Wear more hats!

It is a hard road as the top 30 players are not the ones you are trying to sell your event too. It is the bottom 40 that you want to come there because they will end up buying your extra stuff, entering your raffles, and making the event an event. Us jackholes who play for the win are going to come no matter what. We crave that competition and as long as we get it will be pretty happy.

Meh lots of stuff I have talked about with TO's and commentors. Just putting in my two cents.

Well I won't personally noodle anything. If I did, it'd be along with half a dozen large gt organizers or more, or not at all. I'm not interested in playing Mikehammer, and few others would be heh.

Understandable. At the same time, I'd still worry about the reluctance of people to accept a game in which certain units or rules were tweaked. I'm not saying that I feel this way, but there are tons of people out there that are dogmatic by nature. I think a change to force org or outright bans of something like formations are more easily accepted than tweaks to units or rules.

I think we should at least try this stuff out before making any type of policy changes.

Agreed. However, I don't see how formations will do anything but ruin the game's balance even more. There have been a number of people who have postured some lists using the Tau formation. It isn't pretty. Sometimes, a spade is pretty clearly a spade. I don't have to play 100 games with it to know.

Think about it ... in a friendly beer and pretzels gaming group, you almost always have turnover and time that you HAVE to spend establishing expectations and understanding of what is or isn't "OK" to bring to the weekly game. Look at a game like Malifaux instead (M2E specifically) that's by design incredibly well-balanced ... and you can have a much more disparate "style" of gamer show up and do well without really any pre-planning or expectation-setting about "well that's cheesy, don't spam that, do this, etc." Better balance = more beer and pretzel. Less balance = more fodder for power gamers who'll take the time to parse out the imbalanced spots and exploit them.

The other thing that's worth noting is we should all keep our perspectives here. Warhammer 40k is still a characterful, radical game ... made MOST valuable by the fact a MASSIVELY higher # of players participate in it at any level than almost / really any other tabletop miniatures wargame. It provides us with phenomenal social opportunities and a ton of fun, and it still lets us compete as much as we want to.

It's fine to consider whether we as a community want to meddle in VERY minor ways with some of the more extreme components of the game, but it's probably not fine to make mountains out of molehills ... or to lose sight of why we all play in the first place (and I think there are very few people that explicitly got into the game b/c they wanted to SMARSH FACE IN ZEE TOURNAMENTZZZ).

For sure. At the end of the day, fun is why I play. I can only hope others feel the same. If the game isn't fun, I'll stop playing.

That being said, I enjoy people bringing tough lists. At the same time, there is a point when something is broken to a level in which the game becomes homogenized because of it. That is when something has to be done to save a player base.

I'd think some simple attendee research and then sharing of those results would probably be helpful to TOs everywhere. Ideally, a group of TOs could put their heads together and come up with a few basic but important questions for their post-event surveys. That way everyone could compare answers from event to event over time, because opinions may change (or not) as GW continues to bury its customers in supplemental rules.

Realistically, it isn't about creating a community-wide standard (although that may happen naturally as others have mentioned), but about giving each TO what he needs to make decisions about his own event.

Honestly, I think single force org is the way to go. Stuff that breaks the FoC is, by and large, the stuff the ruffles people feathers the most.

In doing this, you're not changing the rules for any unit, creating a situation where your same Wave Serpent could function three different ways at three different tournaments.. Because lets be honest, TOs will never agree on those specific changes.

Instead, you simply limit the craziness. With only 2 HQ slots, right off the bat you kill Seercouncil by taking away HandR. The "four codex," army will never exist. Etc.

Given how quickly the 1999+1 concept was accepted, I think players would be fairly comfortable adopting this change as it's pretty much the same idea.

@Mike: I strongly disagree. Could you give at least a cursory example of damaging unintended consequences? Also, I have my doubts that a dozen tournament organizers will ever agree on anything like what you've suggested. No offense, but you can't even come to terms on a FAQ, much less a banned/errata list.

 hippesthippo wrote:


@Mike: I strongly disagree. Could you give at least a cursory example of damaging unintended consequences? Also, I have my doubts that a dozen tournament organizers will ever agree on anything like what you've suggested. No offense, but you can't even come to terms on a FAQ, much less a banned/errata list.

Um, re: single force org unintended consequences, all you did was turn off the Hit and Run from one 2+ re-roll star, and did nothing to the other? Simultaneously, anyone with extra-FOC quantities due to Allies for whatever reason, from "super fluff" to "hyper competitive" now has to invest in new models. Shall I go on? (and I assume you weren't strongly disagreeing with my primary point about caring about the middle guy, keeping our hobby in perspective, etc)

 hippesthippo wrote:
Also, I have my doubts that a dozen tournament organizers will ever agree on anything like what you've suggested. No offense, but you can't even come to terms on a FAQ, much less a banned/errata list.

I wouldn't be so sure... Call me an optimist but this thread alone now has 3 of the 4 major GT's covered at this point. I think TO's are very conscious of where the game is/heading and they all seem pretty on board with the idea of being proactive about it for the better of the community.

Overall I don't think we need to remove or alter allies at this point. All of 6th I've played an army with no Battle Brothers which has always been a little disheartening, because some of the most basic combos (insert power armor character into guard blob) are so good. But if you take that away, what's the point of even having Battle Brothers. Right now I don't think allies are the problem in the game, and I think a lot of players across the spectrum of competitive versus fun really enjoy them

I'm not overly worried about the formations yet, but depending on how the rest come out banning or restricting them may be very reasonable. I think it was Yakface that mentioned it in the other thread, but the idea of players coming to tournaments where you can't even tell what their army faction is because they have multiple formations/detachments etc is a major turn off for me. But for all we know the other formations may be terrible (though unlikely, since GW is trying to get those holiday bundles sold).

 hippesthippo wrote:

@Mike: I strongly disagree. Could you give at least a cursory example of damaging unintended consequences? Also, I have my doubts that a dozen tournament organizers will ever agree on anything like what you've suggested. No offense, but you can't even come to terms on a FAQ, much less a banned/errata list.

I would not be so sure of this. All of the major TO’s talk to each other. Sure I never had in-depth discussion with Mike on running an event, but I have discussed it with several other organizers that that he talks with him regularly.

Here some food for thought. There are 4 tournaments running the NOVA format. These range from medium size to large (Nova itself being the biggest). You are already 4 out of the dozen using the same system.

I am not saying each event going to be the same. There always are differences, but they are getting closer to each other then most people think.

Here is one example; since The Nova Open all major events have ran the Torrent of Fire software. It will be interesting if LVO, Adepticon and WarGamesCon will also use it. They are so many positives that could come of it we are all using same software.

It should be interesting with GW coming out with all these supplements.

Jay and MD are correct. We're all a lot friendlier with each other than I think people guess. There are a few TOs who think of themselves in competition and backbite/etc., but they are rare and the others know them for what they're like "when you're not looking."

The NOVA "formatted" TOs already talk on a regular basis, inclusive of Bugeater, Kiladelphia, 11th Co, BFS, Indy and NOVA, but I have a chat or an e-mail with most of the other major TO's on a weekly and sometimes daily basis.

LVO is using Torrent of Fire btw, Jay. Not sure on AdeptiCon/W[T]GC.

Screamerstar really isn't a very good army. A Deathstar with medicore shooting and average combat ability which can be denied and has to get into tarpit range to be effective doesn't scare me. I'm talking about stuff that breaks the game and completely disregards basic tenants of the universe it takes place in. Ex., 3/4 codices in one army..

As for people who can no longer use all of their models because of a lack of FoC slots? That's nothing new. I have probably twelve troops and ten hq's for my Chaos army. I've never been able to use them all in a single tournament for obvious reasons. I fail to see what your point is.

What does hurt the middle of the road player is telling him he can't use a unit/formation because you've banned it or deemed it too good as is. Furthermore, you're plan requires the average player, with limited hobby time, to learn even more tournament specific rules for God knows how many different units. You're really opening a can of worms when you decide you want to start altering the rules of the game on a unit-by-unit basis. Single Force Org lets you take whatever unit you want, unchanged. And you can still take allies. You just can't take it all at once, which is hardly a new concept.

 hippesthippo wrote:
Screamerstar really isn't a very good army. A Deathstar with medicore shooting and average combat ability which can be denied and has to get into tarpit range to be effective doesn't scare me. I'm talking about stuff that breaks the game and completely disregards basic tenants of the universe it takes place in. Ex., 3/4 codices in one army..

As for people who can no longer use all of their models because of a lack of FoC slots? That's nothing new. I have probably twelve troops and ten hq's for my Chaos army. I've never been able to use them all in a single tournament for obvious reasons. I fail to see what your point is.

What does hurt the middle of the road player is telling him he can't use a unit/formation because you've banned it or deemed it to good as is. Single Force Org lets you take whatever unit you want, unchanged. You just can't take it all at once, which is hardly a new concept.

You're talking about it being bad for middle of the road for some random to determine what is too good or not as is. You say this right after saying screamerstar is just fine, aka deeming it to be good enough or too good as an individual.

I'm not at a point of advocating ANY changes to the game, but I am open to reasoned discussion about the things that most need changing when they come about. Wholesale FOC changes (Such as restricting the game down to a single FOC) simply change the bar for what to break and why. FMC daemons and/or Screamerstar daemons are one of the top codices, and as someone pointed out in another thread, also one of the least interactive ones ... you do very little (can't shoot screamerstar to death, can't even shoot at FMC daemons swooping a 2++ RR fatey around while the rest never see the table until turn 5) other than watch your opponent roll dice. These are reasons it might be an army you wouldn't want to be rolling the way it is. Might not. It's really less about the individual issues beyond identifying them, and then trying to determine the best way to address them subsequently.

Also, anyone who is running a very powerful army that doesn't need more than a FOC (like wave serpent spam backed by mass hawks, which is easily one of the best armies in the game presently) are going to be boosted by the rest of the game losing access to extra heavies/elites/whatever beyond it.