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.

Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a member of South Mississippi Gamers although I am the crazy relative that they reluctantly have to claim. (lol) I am getting back into the game after a long break but I have been lurking and playing casual games. Now that you know a little about me and my credentials, I am writing this to give my opinion on this topic called “balance”. I believe that TOs cannot balance the game only GW can, TOs are making the game more enjoyable for everyone but mainly the casual player with ristrictions. In this article it is easy to believe that I am anti-TO or Reecius which is not the case I am anti using the word balance because when we say the game is unbalance it pushes away all players from the game as it creates an illusion that the game rules are flawed, which they are not. There is no flaw in 40k as GW is making it possible to make insanely powerful units they are doing this by design, but it is the TOs job to restrict these type of list from being built for the sake of all players eventhough I believe its mainly for casual players, as the more competitive players do not care they just want to compete.

I see a lot of tournament organizers scrambling to figure out ways to balance the game, because supposedly GW has a flaw in their gaming system they are unaware of. Regardless of restrictions people are going to get steamrolled and that has nothing to do with balance, thus it is a foolish goal from the start. “Balancing” gives the tournament organizers and inexperienced players this false hope that they will control the overall power of the elite player’s list. The inexperienced players buy units that are not going to beat elite players and, be of absolutely no use once the player gets better at the game. While the elite players in response to changes go out and buy new units to dominate the new tournament rules, I guess that explains GWs marketing strategy not much of a flaw now is it. In actuality “balancing” creates more variables which are harder on newer players because your elite players will constantly be changing.

In order to fix something you must first identify the problem and, I don’t see the problem I turned to this article for help. article http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html Reecius is a tournament organizer and elite player (if you are reading this have you won a GT), I figure his concerns and issues with “balancing” represents a large portion of our community so I will be quoting this article a lot.

REECIUS WROTE:

The meta though, as predicted, was a bit stale. Over 50% of the armies there used Eldar, Tau or Space Marines in some fashion. And, Daemons were also a force, just as predicted.

I don’t understand why the metagame at Adepticon was consider stale? At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.

REECIUS WROTE:

Lastly, as I called (to no one's surprise) Inquisition was everywhere. In the finals, nearly every list that could take Inquisition, did. So am I bringing this up to pat myself on the back? No, not at all. Just pointing out that the imbalance in the game is at an all time high, currently.

I remember reading that article Reecius did call it, but I don’t think inquisitors are unbalanced. They give their allies access to divination, servo skulls, and grenades for a very cheap price nothing game breaking. What army cannot get re-rolls if they want them? Whenever someone says balance I immediately replace it with power, powerful, or to powerful. So when you say “the imbalance in the game is at an all time high” I see ‘the power in the game is at an all time high”, which to me is a good thing.

REECIUS WROTE:

Yes, there have always been power lists. We all know this. But what we have now is unit combinations that become SO points efficient that it approaches absurdity. TinBane posted the numbers to explain this concept to those less mathematically inclined over at FLG, which you can read here.

Do you the reader think it is possible to rid the game of unit combinations that are so powerful due to allies? Tournament organizers should have two types of events one with absolutely no restrictions and another one where there are restrictions, bans, and require list approval before the tournament. That way the tournament organizers have absolute power guaranteeing a fun game for all participates. If a player doesn’t like the tournament organizers decision with their list changes, tell them they can play with the sharks in the no restrictions tournament.

REECIUS WROTE:

The data there explains concretely what most of us already know intuitively: that some units are unfairly good for their points cost. A unit that becomes almost invincible due to rerolled saves, is fast, fearless, hard hitting and in general an order of magnitude better at everything than anything else in the game is not only good, it is too good. These units should cost many, many more points than they do to justify their power, but don't. Thus they obviously become the competitive choice as they are hyper points efficient.

These units will be created regardless of restrictions. As long as allies exist there will always be hyper point efficient units. Rule changes make you buy new stuff to dominate, which is a good thing everyone enjoys fresh air. Restrictions are really helpful in regional or local tournaments because new units are winning instead of the same old thing. The restrictions do no not balance the game because in order to obtain balance everyone has to have equal opportunity to hyper point efficient units and that will never happen.

REECIUS WROTE:

7/16 players took Eldar in some way, 4 of those were Beastars. 9/16 took Inquisition. It's like Grey Knights from two years back, all over again. And it's not just here, either. The UKGT had 7/10 Eldar in the finals. 5 of them were Beaststar lists. The writing is on the wall. It's not to say that these players are not good (they are) but that these specific Deathstars are too powerful.

This is blown out of proportions to me. To me this entire paragraph says, “Beastars are the most powerful unit in the game according to tournament results”. 7/16 eldar is less than half and 9/16 inquisition should be 6/16 because 3 of them just spent 34 points to get the servo skulls. The variety in the 2014 Adepticon top 16 is the main reason why I am coming back into the game, a freaking drop pod list made it, that’s great!

REECIUS WROTE:

One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.

What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol

REECIUS WROTE:

This is exacerbated when only one of the armies in a game are subject to randomness and the other is not. It creates a grossly imbalanced situation. When my Riptide rerolls to hit at BS9 due to marker lights, wounds on a 2, possibly with rerolls, ignores cover, armor saves, etc. it's shot becomes many, many, many times more powerful than my opponent's shooting that might miss, might not wound, and might bounce off of my armor or cover, etc. Even if that weapon is more powerful than my Riptide's, it isn't as good because it may not do what you want it to but often, costs the same or less points. That is imbalance

The word imbalance creates this false illusion that there is a flaw or a mistake which is false. Remember balance equals power so when someone says that unit is imbalance they are saying that unit is powerful. Don’t you think Tau should have way more powerful shooting attacks? The said Riptide squad will be facing things like the beaststar unit? Riptides vs Beaststar who would win that fight, it can be determined by tactics or a tournament organizer. Either the TO makes it to where we don’t get to see this battle unfold because they make it impossible with their rule changes or one unit gets dominated because somebody gets the subjective nerf stick from the tournament organizer.

REECIUS WROTE:

The same goes for rerolling saves. If I can reroll my 2+ save it is not just twice as good as your 2+, it is SIX TIMES as good. Shouldn't it then, cost 6 times as many points? They don't. And therein lies the problem.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqJ1mTkEuY

Once more these units will be facing off against other monstrosities such as Riptides, beaststars, and other 2+ rerolling save units, bring your cheese to counter their cheese. **** just got real after escalation, the destructive capabilities and defensive capabilities of our units are crazy powerful but that’s the direction GW is going in. We give the stiff arm to the escalation book but the books they release afterwards also have some kick to them as well and there is nothing we can do to stop the constant barrage of powerful units. I don’t like the words balance and imbalance when a player use those words it doesn’t sound like they are complaining, but that’s what he/she is doing.

REECIUS WROTE:

The top players will take Deathstar lists often to stay competitive with one another. I understand that 100%. If you are a player that is driven to win, then you will take the best tools available to you. However, now more than ever the result for the overall scene is games that are often foregone conclusions before they begin. Now, I am not saying Deathstars can't be beaten. Highly skilled players can and do beat them. In fact, many of us enjoy the challenge. I do. But a casual player that doesn't come to the table with the skillset they need to handle these lists gets utterly steamrolled. I have watched the impact it has on players many times and it isn't pretty. It is also one of the root causes for the ongoing migration of 40K players to other games that has been slowly increasing over the past two years.

This is an excellent point! The competitive player is going to steamroll the casual player regardless of what restrictions are made. I have to put this in bold letters, THE NICK NANAVATI’s OF THE WORLD ARE GOING TO STEAMROLL CASUAL PLAYERS REGARDLESS OF TOURNAMENT ORGANIZER’S RESTRICTIONS. I understand your concern about the decreasing 40k players as I was one of them. I left the game because they threw everything at us including the kitchen sink with this edition and it was too much change to quickly and I couldn’t handle it. It is ironic that the same thing that pushed me away is drawing me back; I now look at 40k differently. I am going to face crazy super powerful units but I have access to crazy super powerful units, it’s a trade off. We have to make sure that new players when building their armies do not play stuff they have no chance of winning against. We have to literally baby them into the game, which is the way it should be done. Just make sure that before they make a large purchase that they have one game against a crazy super combo list so they can see what true power is.

REECIUS WROTE:

So what to do?

It's time for some self restraint in order to have more enjoyable, more challenging, and more accessible tournaments for everyone. The best players will win in any meta. It really doesn't matter. They are wired to find the most points efficient lists that exist and have the experience to master them relatively quickly. No matter the tools available to them, they will build the best possible lists. They will also almost always be the guys at the top tables as they have been, year after year. Changing the meta as a group really doesn't impact them. Who it does impact is everyone else at the event that wants fun, fair games.

Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games? Tournament organizers have to protect casual players and that is why the best option is a separate tournament where the organizer has absolute power. They will be able to say no to beaststar, seer council, and screamerstar list.

REECIUS WROTE:

What we're doing to limit some of the craziness is the following:
1. Only two detachments in a list. What that means is you can take a primary and secondary detachments, but no more. Space Marines+Inquisition. Space Marines+Imperial Guard. But not all three. You can take add-ons that fit in your primary detachment such as Be'Lakor that won't count towards your limit. This cuts back on the cherry picked Inquisitor that sits around throwing magical grenades and adding Servo Skulls randomly into lists as well as less of the ubiquitous Coteaz. You can still take Inquisition if you want, just not all of it at once. You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything. Too many Inquisitorial allies cuts down on variety as if you go to an event knowing 70% of the field will be able to totally shut down your Scouts/Infiltrators/Deep Strikers/Etc. people will choose not to bring those types of units. Plus, it is stupid to see an all
Xenos army led by a Coteaz against Imperial armies...also led by a Coteaz. Yeah.

Sacrifice an entire ally slot just to cancel scout moves and infiltrating, not happening few armies would use Inquisition if that’s the case. One sentence stands out in this paragraph, “You have to make choices instead of just taking the best of everything”. This sentence proves my main point that restrictions create false hope. Do you the reader think this will prevent the elite player from taking the best of everything? The answer is no elite players will always take the best of everything that is available and steamroll inferior list.

REECIUS WROTE:

Formations are in, but count as a detachment. This means you can take Skyblight or the Tau formation but at the cost of an ally. We find this to be quite fair and it makes Nids a top tier build who bring anti-Deathstar ability to the game to help balance the meta. Plus, it opens up some cool, fun lists.

Making formations count as detachments limits certain factions. The suggested limitations create an illusion that you achieved victory before the game has started. A player gains zero advantage if the restrictions forced their opponent to use something different to beat them with. In fact your opponent has the advantage because he knows how to kill you with the new stuff and you have no idea what to do as a casual player, where previously you would know I need to kill that Centurion Squad. .

REECIUS WROTE:

Imperial Knights are in. We would have done this anyway as Knights are super fun, but Imperial Knights can do sufficient damage to Deathstars with support to crack them and make them not so ludicrously durable. It will force players to think twice about taking a Star if Knights are on the prowl.

I agree with this, GW really knocked the ball out of the park with Imperial Knights.

REECIUS WROTE:

Missions. Missions fundamentally change the game. By using the right missions in the right ratio, you can make units like Deathstars less viable by altering win conditions.

This I also agree with changing missions is a perfectly fine.

REECIUS WROTE:

I think so long as we as a community decide to take the bull by the horns and acknowledge that the game as is is grossly imbalanced and not conducive to fun, fair competition, we will have no problem adjusting. It will also take the acknowledgement of those that play Deathstars that their lists are inherently, mathematically, objectively, undeniably imbalancing to the game. I am not demonizing these lists or players at all. Deathstars aren't unbeatable, Adepticon was won by an FMC Daemon player after all. Although in fairness, at that level of play lists become far less relevant and luck and skill are by far more important. The hyper powered list just makes it easier for the top players to get to the finals.

Reecius clearly doesn’t like Deathstars so he wants to nerf them or get rid of them completely. Star list are auto wins against non top players but in this article Reecius admits that even with changes those non top players will be demolished anyways, so what is the point? Even if changes are made new units will rise to be just as deadly, so what is the point? The point is that, TO’s make rule changes not because it “balances” the game but because it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players. Making regional modifications to make sure that everyone in your area enjoys themselves is a good thing. At a GT where people are flying in from all across the country, the rule modifications that were made to make the regional players happy might screw over another region's players.

To sum it all up balance is controlled by GW, we use the word balance too loosely. We can make changes that will force us to use new units and tactics which will keep the game fresh and exciting. The number of units available has tripled since 6th started, making it impossible for TO’s to balance the game. They are doing the best they can to make sure that the tournament they are running is successful so just sharpen or dull your list according to the restrictions and enjoy the game.

Using quote tags would help

I completely disagree with you, and agree with Reecius. Someone take a picture, Reecius can attest that that didn't happen often for a while

Since the last time you played competitive 40k was in 2012 (based on your intro above) you're a little behind the times, I think... Reecius would've agreed with you then, most likely.

I have participated in a handfull of tournaments since 2012 and I am a play test dummy for people in my group as they see me as the competitive guru, I am fully aware of the current meta.

I would love to hear what parts you disagree with and you can even give examples to voice your opinion. A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful. I did make changes so the quotes are easier to understand.

 CKO wrote:
and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player

If only such a thing existed. If you want to play wargames competitively you really need to use a better ruleset, preferably one that has actually been playtested.

 CKO wrote:
Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player. In order for me to call myself elite I will have to win a GT and I have yet to do that.

So, I'm not going to address the ridiculous claim that there is such a thing as an 'Elite' 40k player.

I'm just going to point out that winning a GT does not mean you have any better idea of how tournaments should be run than people who don't win. Many people enter tournaments. Not all of them own current meta armies, competitive armies, play very often or have any expectation of reaching the top tables. But they pay their money to enter just the same as the person who went out and purchased the most current power list. The tournament has an equal responsibility to make the event fun and fair to both the 'elite' and the 'fun' players.

Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.

 CKO wrote:
At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.

The arguments against this are well-trodden ground on here. In short...

1 - The game is probably too complex to be perfectly balanced, and there will always be some lists that are more powerful than others. If I'm playing a more powerful army and you're playing a less powerful one, it should be more difficult for you to win. However, if it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to win, then this stops being a fun game. The argument is that the balance difference between more powerful and less powerful lists is too big - such that if you don't own one of the current few powerful lists, you are unlikely to win

2 - Building and painting an army takes a lot of time and money and involves preferences other than 'what is the most powerful combo?'. The most powerful combo also changes very quickly. Many players going to a tournament will therefore not own the most powerful combo, but something in the middle. Asking everyone attending to buy the most powerful combo is not an option.

3 - While these players (the majority) don't really expect to win the tournament, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to win will cause frustration. Hence, then balance issue above.

4 - The people at tournaments with non-optimal lists are there to enjoy a few games of 40k with different opponents and different armies. They want variety - hence the numerous tournaments who offer schemes where you won't end up playing against your friends. This is something the majority of tournament attendees want, and something that is hampered when the meta encourages people to only bring the same few lists.

5 - Because of the above points, and because tournaments have a responsibility to the majority of their attendees, tournaments have a responsibility to make sure as many people can compete as possible, to encourage diversity of lists, and to make sure that bringing a less powerful list is not a boring auto-lose for one player.


Also, because of the above points, the idea that winning a GT must make you an 'Elite' player is even more laughable. I will probably be taking Noise Marines to the NOVA, because that's the army I've been painting this year. I know that, if I go out now and buy Taudar, I'll immediately place myself in a higher bracket, and higher up the scoring tables, but it won't miraculously make me a better player.

Competitive 40k is a joke right now. Have a look at the current top competitive lists. Or rather list (sic). The game is absolutely broken and far from being balanced. A competitive player stepping in and trying to fix the mistakes GW ought to fix themselves is a welcome sign and much appreciated.

The very same approach has been successful in WHFB; revolutionizing and vastly improving the competitive scene in Europe.

 CKO wrote:

I would love to hear what parts you disagree with and you can even give examples to voice your opinion. A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful. I did make changes so the quotes are easier to understand.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I also don't want to be too repetitive, as there are several threads in this section where I've articulated my view (maybe too frequently ) on this. I personally think a source limit is palatable to both competitive and casual players, and is a perfect thing for most events to implement without getting into the weeds of GW's rules madness. As it is, GW has put out tons of supplemental rules with little or no guidance on how they should be used.

If someone, such as yourself, wants Escalation, no source limit, and totally unmodified book missions, there are events that do that. But it's not what most players seem to want in the current meta, with good damn reason lol. When Reecius "champion of Forgeworld inclusion" is saying a source limit just makes sense, it makes sense to listen, imo. MVBrandt of the Nova Open (and winner of best general in the Adepticon team tourney) also is going this route for his event. So they are both "elite" players, and TOs.

I, on the other hand, am completely middle of the pack (our team was 57th of 120 teams at Adepticon). And I like to express my thoughts since I figure organizers want to hear what ordinary players are thinking, and I am so totally in favor of a source limit to give some kind of structure to the supplemental rules. I play tyranids, and so love the inclusion of data slate formations, and having it count as your allied slot seems like a great way to include them.

In the end mine is just one opinion, but I'm pointing out that a lot (LOT) of ordinary players, elite players, and TOs feel this way in the current meta, and that's why TOs are rightfully responding to it. But there are all inclusive, including Escalation, events for people like you, too, it's just not as popular a style of event given GW's rules avalanche lately. This isn't 5th edition, and for better or worse, some framework on what rules to allow / in what quantity are needed for most (but not all) events.

Edit: By quote tags I meant what I used at the top of this post, which you can get by using square brackets instead parentheses like this: (quote) The quoted text (/quote)

Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

slaede wrote:
Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

Pretty close to the truth.

 Hulksmash wrote:

slaede wrote:
Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

Pretty close to the truth.

Frankly, it's more about curbing the repetition, at least for me - what's the fun in traveling across the country, to play against essentially the same Tau/Eldar combo 5/7 games? Even worse if it's an event where terrain is uniform across all the tables.

Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....

 Janthkin wrote:
Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....

You forgot to add Knights, with a skyshield landing pad or void shield generator, in the same army as the above combos (or a Revenant, as long as we're talking totally unrestricted 40k, am I right? )

There's a pretty analogous thread to this one on what to bring to an unrestricted event and it lays out some eye-openers:


Sure, that's legal as the rules are currently, if an event doesn't want to add any additional guidelines. Should every event be run that way? Heck no..........

It's actually the kick to the fluff that hurts me most, which I must admit is a surprise even to me.

From a rules perspective, I gave up in December - it's become impossible to keep track of every rule, or even to be able to look at a list and know whether or not it's legal. Except for Tyranids.

I agree with a lot of the stuff thats already been posted, Also the idea of having to have won a GT to be an elite player is a bit silly, like wise its tough to compare 40k from 2012 to todays version. I've stopped playing in "competitive" settings largely because I got tired of playing against the same handful of armies, 40k is a hobby for me and playing against the same lists over and over again is pretty boring. I am pretty interested to see what impact the Knights have on all the "Star" units

Personally this edition annoys me for the same reason Janthkin mentioned. The fluff abuse hurts me. I think allies is a neat idea and I think it has its place in Apoc bring whatever the hack you want games but the nonsense it allows in a standard 40k game is silly.

 Janthkin wrote:
It's actually the kick to the fluff that hurts me most, which I must admit is a surprise even to me.

This. I've never particularly been a fluff-bunny about 40k. But some of the lists coming out just make me go "Really? *REALLY*? Come on man..."

Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.

QFT.

As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player", I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.

I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face. There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.

Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.

 mikhaila wrote:
Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.

QFT.

As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player", I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.

I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face. There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.

Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.

But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!

 Hulksmash wrote:

slaede wrote:
Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

Pretty close to the truth.

Exactly.

I used to be pretty against comp. Army-building is a part of the game, some lists are better than others, and you don't have to win the event to have fun. Deal with it. Right?

Right?

Well...

See, a Revenant in a game of 40k is just stupid. Not necessarily unbalanced; just stupid. My Tau army can kill one reliably on turn one, and that's game over. But if I don't go first, I'll lose two important units and I'll never be able to kill the damn thing and it will table me by itself. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

In addition, there's the new imbalance. 40k was always unbalanced, but even in the Grey Knight doompocalypse of late 5th, if you showed up with one of the crappier codexes you could still participate in a game against them. Everyone can kill a few Rhinos and some dudes, or a few fancy Terminators or whatever. You'd probably still end up losing, but at least you left the game with the feeling of having been a part of it. Force the guy to reinforce his flank. Deny him some objectives. Run like a girl. Whatever. Now, though, if I bring my Blood Angels against a Screamerstar (which isn't even close to being the best army in the game) it's pretty likely that I won't even kill a single model before I lose. Super!

You know, when you get down to it, the game is actually kind of balanced. You could go to a big tournament and be not at all surprised if Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and now Astra Militarum won it. With the inclusion of dataslates, Nids can compete. That's a lot of factions with a legitimate chance to win.

CSM and Dark Angels don't measure up, but I think Ravenwing is underrated and underrepresented, and CSM occasionally show up in the top echelons. Necrons can also hang. Even Imperial Knights with AM allies might be highly competitive.

So the balance is pretty alright. It's the hyper-efficient overpowered stuff that needs fixin.

To the OP:

I can see you have said you are new to 6th ed. from your post, so giving you benefit of the doubt.

Honestly I would go to 3-6 GT's if that's what your aiming for then come back to this thread and have a think if you still think the same..

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 CKO wrote:
Hi, my name is Chad Knight (aka CKO aka Kenpachi) and I am a few steps away from being an elite 40k player. In order for me to call myself elite I will have to win a GT and I have yet to do that.

 Palindrome wrote:


If only such a thing existed. If you want to play wargames competitively you really need to use a better ruleset, preferably one that has actually been playtested.

So, I'm not going to address the ridiculous claim that there is such a thing as an 'Elite' 40k player.

If winning multiple Grand Tournaments where there are hundreds of players competing do not make you an elite player what does? Its like winning a championship Lebron James has rings, Karl Malone doesn't he is a hall of famer but, he will not be put up there with the elites because he didn't win the big one. I view Grand Tournament winners as players who has rings so when Tony Kopach and Nick Nanavati have atleast two rings to my none I cant say I am on their level.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
I'm just going to point out that winning a GT does not mean you have any better idea of how tournaments should be run than people who don't win. Many people enter tournaments. Not all of them own current meta armies, competitive armies, play very often or have any expectation of reaching the top tables. But they pay their money to enter just the same as the person who went out and purchased the most current power list. The tournament has an equal responsibility to make the event fun and fair to both the 'elite' and the 'fun' players.

I mention I was a competitive player so that the reader would know what side of the fence I am on. Winning the majority of your games doesnt some how make your opinion on things more important than a player that comes to a tournament to show off their amazingly painted army, so I agree with you 100%.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.

I agree that is why in the article I wrote:

 CKO wrote:
In order to fix something you must first identify the problem and, I don’t see the problem I turned to this article for help. article http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html Reecius is a tournament organizer and elite player (if you are reading this have you won a GT), I figure his concerns and issues with “balancing” represents a large portion of our community so I will be quoting this article a lot.

The whole point of the article was not to bash anyone or to claim that tournaments are for the best of the best. It says that balance is impossible with 40k and a tournament organizer tue goal is finding ways to make sure casual players have a good time. They want the casual player vs casual playe match ups to be good games, and not determined by bringing one unit such as a Revenant Titan.

 CKO wrote:
At any competitive setting certain things are going to be used more because you have a better chance of winning, Typically 3-5 decks dominate card game’s tournament there is no difference with 40k. I think Space Marines, Tau, and Eldar dominated the top tables and that made it seem as if there were more of them.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
The arguments against this are well-trodden ground on here. In short...

1 - The game is probably too complex to be perfectly balanced, and there will always be some lists that are more powerful than others. If I'm playing a more powerful army and you're playing a less powerful one, it should be more difficult for you to win. However, if it's IMPOSSIBLE for you to win, then this stops being a fun game. The argument is that the balance difference between more powerful and less powerful lists is too big - such that if you don't own one of the current few powerful lists, you are unlikely to win

I agree with you again but those Impossible match ups will happen regardless because if the non power list player continues to win he eventually will run into an Elite players or wannabe Elite players (players who have elite list). The elite player will win the match up because of superior list and tactics while the wannabe might win but if he does its usually due to the elite list not tactics. This is when the restrictions come into play. Wannabe elite are the players mainly affected because the list is their true advantage over non power list players and if the TO can find a way to limit the power of those list than the non power list player who are better tactician can possible win. In the article I said restrictions create a false hope that it will limit the power of Elite Players which it doesnt it limits the power of the wannabes such as myself, because at the end of the day the Elite players will win it all.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
2 - Building and painting an army takes a lot of time and money and involves preferences other than 'what is the most powerful combo?'. The most powerful combo also changes very quickly. Many players going to a tournament will therefore not own the most powerful combo, but something in the middle. Asking everyone attending to buy the most powerful combo is not an option.

I do not care what people bring I am not trying to force people to bring powerful combos. If they want good games against non powerul list it will eventually happen after 1-2 losses. Thats why TO place restrictions to create a false hope that the casual player can win it all but its not happening. However what it is does do is create a perfect environment where the casual player will enjoy the majority of their games.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
3 - While these players (the majority) don't really expect to win the tournament, the idea that it's IMPOSSIBLE for them to win will cause frustration. Hence, then balance issue above.

Either the Elite player will win another tournament or a wannabe elite (uses elite list) becomes an elite player and win. The non powerful list player might win but it will be hard as hell, but a drop pod list made the top 16 at Adepticon so it is possible.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
4 - The people at tournaments with non-optimal lists are there to enjoy a few games of 40k with different opponents and different armies. They want variety - hence the numerous tournaments who offer schemes where you won't end up playing against your friends. This is something the majority of tournament attendees want, and something that is hampered when the meta encourages people to only bring the same few lists.

I agree with you but the winner of the tournament is going to be an optimal list. I am saying that balance is a foolish goal the true goal is insuring that non-optimal list players have fun and dont have to play a press win button type list..Balance is making all things equal which in 40k it will never happen.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
5 - Because of the above points, and because tournaments have a responsibility to the majority of their attendees, tournaments have a responsibility to make sure as many people can compete as possible, to encourage diversity of lists, and to make sure that bringing a less powerful list is not a boring auto-lose for one player.

 CKO wrote:
Reecius clearly doesn’t like Deathstars so he wants to nerf them or get rid of them completely. Star list are auto wins against non top players but in this article Reecius admits that even with changes those non top players will be demolished anyways, so what is the point? Even if changes are made new units will rise to be just as deadly, so what is the point? The point is that, TO’s make rule changes not because it “balances” the game but because it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players.

Rule changes make you buy new stuff to dominate, which is a good thing everyone enjoys fresh air. Restrictions are really helpful in regional or local tournaments because new units are winning instead of the same old thing.

I agree thats why in the article I wrote the above.

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Also, because of the above points, the idea that winning a GT must make you an 'Elite' player is even more laughable. I will probably be taking Noise Marines to the NOVA, because that's the army I've been painting this year. I know that, if I go out now and buy Taudar, I'll immediately place myself in a higher bracket, and higher up the scoring tables, but it won't miraculously make me a better player.

Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person that wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes Arbitorian?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Competitive 40k is a joke right now. Have a look at the current top competitive lists. Or rather list (sic). The game is absolutely broken and far from being balanced. A competitive player stepping in and trying to fix the mistakes GW ought to fix themselves is a welcome sign and much appreciated.

You are agreeing with me, which is balance in 40k is a foolish goal, also I am not trying to fix the mistakes GW is making TOs are. 40k will be unbalanced regardless of what TOs do but the changes they make will make the game enjoyable for all of their participates including myself.

 RiTides wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dismissive, but I also don't want to be too repetitive, as there are several threads in this section where I've articulated my view (maybe too frequently ) on this. I personally think a source limit is palatable to both competitive and casual players, and is a perfect thing for most events to implement without getting into the weeds of GW's rules madness. As it is, GW has put out tons of supplemental rules with little or no guidance on how they should be used.

GW's ruels madness is the very reason why I believe balance is a TOs foolish goal, but that doesnt mean we cannot have fun at GTs. All of GTs in my opinion are doing a hell of a job at making their events great.

 RiTides wrote:
If someone, such as yourself, wants Escalation, no source limit, and totally unmodified book missions, there are events that do that. But it's not what most players seem to want in the current meta, with good damn reason lol. When Reecius "champion of Forgeworld inclusion" is saying a source limit just makes sense, it makes sense to listen, imo. MVBrandt of the Nova Open (and winner of best general in the Adepticon team tourney) also is going this route for his event. So they are both "elite" players, and TOs.

I dont care what I am allowed to used, I am not pro escalation or no source limit I am pro TO. Their job is hard enough as it is, asking them to balance the game for us is to heavy of a burden for TOs to carry. The best they can do is make sure that everyone enjoys themselves because power list will happen regardless, they can attempt to lower the level of power but at the end of the day it still ends in a mascre.

 RiTides wrote:
I, on the other hand, am completely middle of the pack (our team was 57th of 120 teams at Adepticon). And I like to express my thoughts since I figure organizers want to hear what ordinary players are thinking, and I am so totally in favor of a source limit to give some kind of structure to the supplemental rules. I play tyranids, and so love the inclusion of data slate formations, and having it count as your allied slot seems like a great way to include them.

I am lost, and I am not sure what your talking about and I am just joking! In the middle is a fine place to be and I think people should not sleep on nids they can be good.

 RiTides wrote:
In the end mine is just one opinion, but I'm pointing out that a lot (LOT) of ordinary players, elite players, and TOs feel this way in the current meta, and that's why TOs are rightfully responding to it. But there are all inclusive, including Escalation, events for people like you, too, it's just not as popular a style of event given GW's rules avalanche lately. This isn't 5th edition, and for better or worse, some framework on what rules to allow / in what quantity are needed for most (but not all) events.

Once more I am not pro escalation I dont own any of those models, I believe alot of people put me in that category because I informed the reader that I was a competitive player and balance is impossible, so logically I must want the inclusion of everything in tournaments including escalation, NO!

slaede wrote:
Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

You are agreeing with me in a way as you are saying that perfect balance is a foolish goal. Making sure everyone has a good time by placing restrictions on certain things is what TOs are doing which is why I am coming back to the game because its not balance but it can still be extremely fun.

 Hulksmash wrote:

slaede wrote:
Nobody's interested in finding perfect balance. People are interested in curbing the unkillable, unfun stuff.

Pretty close to the truth.

Hulksmash agrees with me than, balance impossible but making the game more enjoyable is possible.

 Janthkin wrote:
Frankly, it's more about curbing the repetition, at least for me - what's the fun in traveling across the country, to play against essentially the same Tau/Eldar combo 5/7 games? Even worse if it's an event where terrain is uniform across all the tables.

I think they are doing a great job with repetition, thats why i wrote in the article.

 CKO wrote:
This is blown out of proportions to me. To me this entire paragraph says, “Beastars are the most powerful unit in the game according to tournament results”. 7/16 eldar is less than half and 9/16 inquisition should be 6/16 because 3 of them just spent 34 points to get the servo skulls. The variety in the 2014 Adepticon top 16 is the main reason why I am coming back into the game, a freaking drop pod list made it, that’s great!

In adepticon the top tables were really diverse.

 Janthkin wrote:
Although, I'm not sure that I want to continue playing in a world where the rules allow Eldar, Dark Eldar, and the Inquisition to all be part of the same army. Must be getting old....

It is silly at times.

 ironicsilence wrote:
I agree with a lot of the stuff thats already been posted, Also the idea of having to have won a GT to be an elite player is a bit silly, like wise its tough to compare 40k from 2012 to todays version.

I said this earlier, Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person who wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes Ironicsilence?

 ironicsilence wrote:
I've stopped playing in "competitive" settings largely because I got tired of playing against the same handful of armies, 40k is a hobby for me and playing against the same lists over and over again is pretty boring. I am pretty interested to see what impact the Knights have on all the "Star" units

I left because it was to much to fast and I resented the fact that I could no longer keep up with everything. I still played the game but without the intentions of going to a tournament until after adepticon where I realized that I could use anything I want. I dont think knights will be that big of a factor sadly their weakness is flyers.

 ironicsilence wrote:
Personally this edition annoys me for the same reason Janthkin mentioned. The fluff abuse hurts me. I think allies is a neat idea and I think it has its place in Apoc bring whatever the hack you want games but the nonsense it allows in a standard 40k game is silly.

And they claim they are forging a narative!

 mikhaila wrote:
Reecius probably has a better idea than most not because he has won a GT, but because he runs tournaments, runs a gaming shop, and spends more time thinking and talking 40k than most people.

QFT.

As to the ridiculousness of the "soon to be an elite player",

, why is it ridiculous?

 mikhaila wrote:
[i] I can only laugh. Winning a GT means....drumroll please.....That you won a GT. That's it. Someone else might infer that you are a better than average 40k player, but it's not a given.

I said this earlier, Do you have a trophy? Did you go to an event with over 300 poeple and come out on top? Were the best players in the country there? A person who wins a GT can say yes to all these questions, that makes them elite in my opinion. What makes a player elite in your eyes mikhaila?

 mikhaila wrote:
I've never heard anyone actually referred to as'an elite player'. Certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves that way, and keep a straight face.

Than you have never met Kenpachi!

 mikhaila wrote:
There are some very, very good players. They usually let their torunament records and their armies do the talking for them.

That is why I call GT winners elite because they have the trophys to prove it, I am getting this weird vibe about your post mikhaila it is almost as if you are attacking my view point of what an elite player is. Are you upset that you are not considered an elite player in my eyes?

 mikhaila wrote:
Any of your thoughts on tournaments, good or bad, are sadly going to be tainted by this initial foolishness.

That is sad, you were unable to read the article unbiasly because of my definition of elite. I cannot take your comments into consideration because you openly admit that you are bias from the start, I would love for you to try reading it without being bias because of my quote on quote, "initial foolishness" and give me your opinion than.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!

Yes, my first sensei taught me the game by pounding me into the dirt everygame until I started to win, the second sensei taught me how to make list, and the third taught me the importance of the missions but only 2 of them could be considered elite.

I am not elite because I do not meet my definition of elite which is winning a GT.

Thud wrote:

Exactly.

I used to be pretty against comp. Army-building is a part of the game, some lists are better than others, and you don't have to win the event to have fun. Deal with it. Right?

Right?

Well...

See, a Revenant in a game of 40k is just stupid. Not necessarily unbalanced; just stupid. My Tau army can kill one reliably on turn one, and that's game over. But if I don't go first, I'll lose two important units and I'll never be able to kill the damn thing and it will table me by itself. Stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

I agree the revenant titan is just dum.

Thud wrote:
In addition, there's the new imbalance. 40k was always unbalanced, but even in the Grey Knight doompocalypse of late 5th, if you showed up with one of the crappier codexes you could still participate in a game against them. Everyone can kill a few Rhinos and some dudes, or a few fancy Terminators or whatever. You'd probably still end up losing, but at least you left the game with the feeling of having been a part of it. Force the guy to reinforce his flank. Deny him some objectives. Run like a girl. Whatever. Now, though, if I bring my Blood Angels against a Screamerstar (which isn't even close to being the best army in the game) it's pretty likely that I won't even kill a single model before I lose. Super!

You also are are agreeing with me because you say that 40k is unbalanced. Yes, TO are doing a good job of making the game fun for all but sometimes the casual player runs into a list they can do nothing about. The burden of balance should not be placed on TO for they cannot fix the best they can do is create a fun environment for all if you run into that list know the TO did their best to stop it from happening.

slaede wrote:
You know, when you get down to it, the game is actually kind of balanced. You could go to a big tournament and be not at all surprised if Space Marines, Tau, Eldar, Daemons and now Astra Militarum won it. With the inclusion of dataslates, Nids can compete. That's a lot of factions with a legitimate chance to win.

I dont think it is balanced because everyone do not have the equal opportunity to create death star type units, but the game is alot better now than it was at the start of 6th when no one had anti-air and so forth. The game is now fair because alot of armies can win as opposed to a select few just look at the Adepticon results for proof.

slaede wrote:
CSM and Dark Angels don't measure up, but I think Ravenwing is underrated and underrepresented, and CSM occasionally show up in the top echelons. Necrons can also hang. Even Imperial Knights with AM allies might be highly competitive.

Yes I know that is why I am back in the mix, I have been playing in casual games and buying codexes but now I have intentions of playing competitively again.

slaede wrote:
So the balance is pretty alright. It's the hyper-efficient overpowered stuff that needs fixin.

Not everyone can get the hyper efficient overpowered stuff so the game is not balanced, but the majority of the new stuff can.

 happygolucky wrote:
To the OP:

I can see you have said you are new to 6th ed. from your post, so giving you benefit of the doubt.

I think I did a poor job of explaining my experience with six I have gone to a handful of tournaments in six and I play around 1 game a week. Now I am playing 3 games a week, when I say I left I meant GT.

 happygolucky wrote:
Honestly I would go to 3-6 GT's if that's what your aiming for then come back to this thread and have a think if you still think the same..

I am not new I am fully aware of the monstrosities that 6th has created. I am actually looking forward to creating my own and facing them now that I see that I literally have a million options.

OMG, I literally responded to everyones post thanks for your comments.

 CKO wrote:
A simple disagree without reasoning is not as helpful.

You're right, it isn't.

 CKO wrote:
REECIUS WROTE:
One of the keys to writing a good list in 40K is reducing variables. Chance is just that: chance. It is fun and creates exciting moments, but it is totally outside of player influence. Too much of it and the game feels like it is playing itself, and that skill in the game takes a backseat. The more variables you take out of the game, the more the outcome is determined by player choice. While that is good in general terms in my mind (I don't want to play a game that is totally random), if you go too far down that road you end up with Chess. Chess is a great game, but the craziness of 40K is part of its charm. The key though, the art of the design process, is to strike the right balance between randomness and player determination of outcomes. We want enough of the random element to create the tense, fun moments we all love, but not so little of it that the game becomes overly predictable.

What the hell are you talking about Willis? lol

 CKO wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
But the OP has 3 Sensei and is himself a gaming guru...how can he not be elite?!

Yes, my first sensei taught me the game by pounding me into the dirt everygame until I started to win, the second sensei taught me how to make list, and the third taught me the importance of the missions but only 2 of them could be considered elite.

I am not elite because I do not meet my definition of elite which is winning a GT.

I was just being an ass. Honestly, I think the terminology you are using is influencing how people are responding to your post. Attaching terms like "elite", "sensei" and "guru" to war gaming and war gamers is rather... pretentious. It gives the impression that you might be taking this a little too seriously as we are discussing the activity of pushing toy soldiers around a game table-not mastering a martial art. Perhaps this is a language translation issue and not someone getting "too deep" into their space-manz obsession, but based on your additional responses I am not sure.

Anyway, good luck chasing the 1337ness.

CKO, you don't seem to be aware but mikhaila is a TO (and owner of Showcase Comics up in Philly) and has run GTs for a long time. He's seen a lot of "elite" players at his events, and I think it's a categorization he just can't take seriously.

I personally think you're pretty off-base, and very out of touch with the current meta and state of 40k on many of your points... but I already explained why above (referencing ordinary, "elite" players, and TOs). Most people who are paying close attention agree with the type of things Reecius posted in that article (even if they disagree on the details). Not sure what else to say really, so I'll leave it at that.

In case it wasn't easy to understand CKO by what I wrote I don't agree with you and find your approach to 40k and the idea of elite players just silly. Good players sure. "Elite" players, silly

I would also agree with Dark, and I gather you're intention likely wasnt to come across as it seems like you did, I suspect that you'd get some better feedback with a "softer" approach. Personally I'd rather just discuss your thoughts on the article, but starting the thread off with a "gaming" pedigree will likely get a lot of people on the wrong foot before even getting to the baulk of your points.

Yeah, using the term "sensei" and "guru" just makes you sound pretentious. What you're really saying is a friend at a gaming club played you with tough lists, then another friend helped you see how to min-max a list. That's not mastery of an art form. It's pretty basic maths. I don't call my physics lecturer at university a "sensei" or "guru" and he's discovered around a third of all the currently known star clusters

And the idea of an "Elite" player in a game in which there is an element of chance is ridiculous. You could have the greatest tactical mind of a generation but your flawless strategies fail because you can't roll above a 1.

Yes my first mistake was telling everyone I am a competitive player. It came off as I am good and I know what I am talking about which was not my intent. If you read the article you will see that I am pro TO and whatever decision they make as it makes the game more enjoyable for casual players.

While players like me will enjoy the tournament because of the competition. I am anti "balance" the actual word, using the word balance creates an illusion that 40k has a flaw in its mechanics when in reality its just that the power level of units is at an all time high.

We are going around saying things like, "That unit is unbalance and this one is also" newer players or people thats trying to get used to the power difference will think 40k is mechanically flawed as opposed to you got to figure out a way to kill that deathstar or even create your own powerful unit.

I can prove my point which one sounds worse.

a. You only won because you used that unbalanced unit.

b. You only won because you used that powerful unit.

Option a makes it seem as if there is something wrong with the game while option b just means you used a powerful unit which people have been doing for years.

I have a problem with the word "Balance" not Tournament Organizers. The burden of balance should be on GW not TOs.

Why can’t this target group of players have a separate tournament to guarantee they have fun fair games?

I thoroughly disagree on every other point, but I agree with this. Have a gaming 'event' alongside the big battle of the deathstars and see how many of the casual gamers attend that instead.

 CKO wrote:
Yes my first mistake was telling everyone I am a competitive player. It came off as I am good and I know what I am talking about which was not my intent.

No, your first problem was using the words "elite" and "sensei". Regardless if what you meant they make you come across as very "better than you". This whole sub forum is about being competitive.

I have a problem with the word "Balance" not Tournament Organizers. The burden of balance should be on GW not TOs.

Agreed. Has GW met this burden? No? So should we just give up and stop doing tournaments, or should we, as a community, do something about it?

AdeptiCon had an "alongside" event this year, but in reverse to what you suggest. Want no holds barred 40k? Go for it! Lords of War, everything was in.

Did I mention the event had 13 players

Yes, it was going up against the Championships, but you can't expect a Con to make the less popular format the main one. If you want unrestricted 40k, there are events for it... you can play in it alongside the main event just like you're suggesting, but in reverse

You can't make the argument you are and then say you don't want Escalation (as you posted above). If it's GW's job to balance alone, then why should TOs care that you might have to face a Revenant behind a Void Shield? Your argument doesn't work or is hypocritical when put into practice... unless you really do want to play that way, but you said above that you don't.