Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you give some actual examples of stealth updates that could be problematic?

 pizzaguardian wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Can you give some actual examples of stealth updates that could be problematic?

Power weapons-swords for C: I for 40k. It was released as power weapons, changed to power sword for a few units.

 dracpanzer wrote:
So long as the TO makes sure to have recently updated versions of the files, should be fine. They're supposed to be checking for shenanigans anyways.

I don't understand how updating the Black Library digital edition is any different than a FAQ update on the GW website.

 Ravenous D wrote:
Fun fact, when you update, it tells you what it changes. Plus you should still look at the FAQ regardless.

 Polonius wrote:
We're at a point where even the top players can't know all of the rules.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
We're at a point where even the top players can't know all of the rules.

We're returning to 3rd edition. 3rd edition had about 36 different legal army lists, not counting added units, characters, etc from White Dwarf. We're only in the low to mid 20's right now.

 Polonius wrote:
Yeah, but it had five years to build up to that. 6th has exploded in just over a year.

And many of the third edition lists were rarely, if ever, played in tournaments.

I think you have a good point, in that this shows it isn't hte end of the world, but at least in 3rd you had a hard copy you could hand to your opponent or TO.

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I just wonder if GW isn't purposely trying to end the fascination with competitive play. We've known for years that the designers find it distasteful, maybe they are deciding to simply break the game so that the only real way to have a 40k event is to simply encourage wacky fun and dice rolling.

This is my favorite conspiracy theory (not meant in a derogatory way) yet!

And, to be honest, sometimes it does feel like this is exactly what is happening. Of course, I have always contended that GW simply doesn't understand the idea. They play a completely different game than a lot of their customers.

 Polonius wrote:
I think those are two sides of the same coin. While I doubt they're twisting their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and cackling about the downfall of competitive 40k, it's hard to ignore the steady stream of "you're doing it wrong" the tournament scene has gotten from GW over the decades. I'm guessing they simply don't see it as a market worth chasing, and they figure the combination of cash and fun all these new rules add is better than a tightly run tournament. scene.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I think those are two sides of the same coin. While I doubt they're twisting their Snidely Whiplash mustaches and cackling about the downfall of competitive 40k, it's hard to ignore the steady stream of "you're doing it wrong" the tournament scene has gotten from GW over the decades. I'm guessing they simply don't see it as a market worth chasing, and they figure the combination of cash and fun all these new rules add is better than a tightly run tournament. scene.

Totally. I imagine each tournament is just going to draw their own line in the sand and we'll have a million different types of events. Kinda like the FW divide but worse. At least with this upcoming divide though, we won't have the 'Is X really legal?' argument. We'll know it is 'legal' but just not at that event.

 Polonius wrote:
I'm ok with it, but I've lost all taste for real competitive 40k. The idea of playing three interesting armies, rolling some dice, having some laughs, and going home is appealing to me now. That's just where I am in life, but I no longer need or even want a super tight rules set. I think having 40k play to its strengths (modelling, painting, backstory) can be good for it going forward. But that's just my very humble opinion.

 pretre wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I'm ok with it, but I've lost all taste for real competitive 40k. The idea of playing three interesting armies, rolling some dice, having some laughs, and going home is appealing to me now. That's just where I am in life, but I no longer need or even want a super tight rules set. I think having 40k play to its strengths (modelling, painting, backstory) can be good for it going forward. But that's just my very humble opinion.

Well, competitive 40k only really exists at the top table at a couple events and I don't ever play there, so it doesn't bother me what happens there. I play at local 3-4 game events where I'm looking for the same kind of experience you are. I play competitively, meaning I want to win and try to, but mostly I want to get 3 or 4 games and have a good time.

So yeah. This stuff doesn't bother me.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Tell me what TO had every codex and used them to check lists? That argument is bogus. At best they used army builder, and guess what? Army Builder will update eventually with the new stuff. Someone some where will make it.

I agree with Pretre. This does feel a lot like 3rd edition with Chapter Aprroved everything.... Go back and look at posts from just a year ago and you will see people asking for this! More units, More rules, Faster releases.......

We got what we asked for... Lets see how they all play first.

 Inquisitor_Dunn wrote:
Tell me what TO had every codex and used them to check lists? That argument is bogus. At best they used army builder, and guess what? Army Builder will update eventually with the new stuff. Someone some where will make it.

I agree with Pretre. This does feel a lot like 3rd edition with Chapter Aprroved everything.... Go back and look at posts from just a year ago and you will see people asking for this! More units, More rules, Faster releases.......

We got what we asked for... Lets see how they all play first.

Experiment 626 wrote:
My big gripe with e-codices is that the run on devices with a limited battery power. So now I'm at the mercy of hoping my opponent isn't a dick/forgetful nob who has ensured they have a full charge on their device, otherwise it'll crap out and then you can have fun taking them at their word that they know their codex.

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

 Reecius wrote:


Or maybe all this OTT stuff will bring balance as every army will be crazy broken?

 yakface wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

I think there is no choice. No matter how many issues or problems you see with them, they exist and must be acknowledged. If a player pays his hard earned money to buy a $50 electronic book and you tell them they can't use that to play in your tournament then you're burying your head in the sand and getting trampled by the reality of the situation.

There are plenty of digital-only 40k rules out there now (like the SOB) which have no caveat of being any less official than any GW print publication is. So if people are paying money to get these data slates, digital-only codexes, etc, they are building their armies to include these models, then tournaments which try to drag their feet and ban all digital publications are going to anger a lot of people who want to play with their official rules that they paid for but can't because a T.O. has a techo-phobia.


Will there be some manipulation of digital files? Of course. Will there be some confusion at some stealth update? Yep.

But such is the state of things in GW-land now. There simply is no other realistic alternative.

My personal advice is: if you take 40k seriously as a competitive tournament game, you probably need to dial things back a notch now and expect a bit of wackiness, because it seems like we're going off the deep end now.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 yakface wrote:

 Centurian99 wrote:
I'm coming to the conclusion that inclusion of the electronic-only codexes in tournaments is a bad thing, for the following reasons:

#1 - Stealth updates - changes to the electronic versions can occur at any time, with little or no warning. Sometimes this can significantly change how things are played. This just seems like a recipe for disaster.
#2 - Access - sure, anyone can download the ebooks. But non-ipad users don't get the stealth updates.

I'm sure we could come up with more reasons why they're a terrible thing for tournaments...but what do people think?

I think there is no choice. No matter how many issues or problems you see with them, they exist and must be acknowledged. If a player pays his hard earned money to buy a $50 electronic book and you tell them they can't use that to play in your tournament then you're burying your head in the sand and getting trampled by the reality of the situation.

There are plenty of digital-only 40k rules out there now (like the SOB) which have no caveat of being any less official than any GW print publication is. So if people are paying money to get these data slates, digital-only codexes, etc, they are building their armies to include these models, then tournaments which try to drag their feet and ban all digital publications are going to anger a lot of people who want to play with their official rules that they paid for but can't because a T.O. has a techo-phobia.


Will there be some manipulation of digital files? Of course. Will there be some confusion at some stealth update? Yep.

But such is the state of things in GW-land now. There simply is no other realistic alternative.

My personal advice is: if you take 40k seriously as a competitive tournament game, you probably need to dial things back a notch now and expect a bit of wackiness, because it seems like we're going off the deep end now.

I agree. We are going this way and any TO who try's to stop digital dex's is just going to look like Canute. More and more people are going to only have digital dex's. IMO asking them to have hard copies, buying something twice, is unfair. The people who insist on having a copy of every rule so they can get an edge probably need to look a little at how seriously they are taking a game. IMO no digital is much more unfair on the first group than having digital is on the second. I also don't buy the idea that physical is better because people have more access as they can look through the books in the shop. That's just abusing the shop owners hospitality and someone else's property.

People complained GW were stuck in the past. The bring publishing up to date and use it to the full. People complain about that. As they say, you can't please all if the people all of the time.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, Goatboy and I were talking about that last night. While some of us may have the inclination to try and figure out how to beat the crazy stuff in the game, most people don't. They just want a fun, challenging game, not a game where they feel like they had no chance from the start. And while in some cases that is inevitable, some of the stuff in the game right now makes that more likely to happen.

 Reecius wrote:
Yeah, actually saying a 2+ of any kind with a reroll counting as a 3+ reroll is a better, all inclusive fix. The 2+ reroll is balls.

Or saying you can only ever use 1 signature system at a time, that helps a ton, too.

Altering the wording to saying, an IC cannot join a RIPtide would be better as it stops Farseers from joining them, too.

Just ideas, but we're aligned here in principle. I know a lot of the other folks I've talked to feel the same way.

MVBrandt wrote:
It's all tweaky at that point ... my spit-balls would be:

Any time you are allowed to re-roll a failed save, the re-rolled target number cannot be better than a 2+

A Tau Commander may only select up to 2 Signature Systems, which also take 1 each of the Commander's Support System slots.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
It's all tweaky at that point ... my spit-balls would be:

Any time you are allowed to re-roll a failed save, the re-rolled target number cannot be better than a 2+

A Tau Commander may only select up to 2 Signature Systems, which also take 1 each of the Commander's Support System slots.

Those aren't all that tweaky. Those are pretty huge changes in my opinion.

Tweaky would be subtle mission changes that favor a certain army more or less than others. If you really think screamerstar / jetseers are a problem, write missions that are hard for them to exploit would be my suggestion.

The one thing I find extremely frustrating about this ban/alteration discussion is that nothing about this is new. GW has written crappy unbalanced rules forever. I will agree in some ways it's worse than before. But it's a bit maddening to see people who traditional exploited/benefited from the imbalance now all of a sudden complain about it because it finally surpassed their personal threshold of chicanery.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:
I would start w modified kill points like adepticon does. You need to kill half of the armies starting value to achieve the objective.

I might de-emphasize so many objectives and go for just one central non relic objective. It doesn't matter if they can contest 28 when there's only one.

You can't get rid of an armies killing power, but you can make your terrain in such away that people can play to stall, hide, and run away from the death stars.

There are options, many options. None of them perfect. But why now after years and years of imbalance is this unkillable unit finally got you? Sure there hasn't been anything as mathematically powerful before, but there have been plenty of things practically as powerful given the tools available to deal with it at the time.

Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

 The Everliving wrote:
I'll play...

Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

Sure it is. You're changing the abilities of the unit (that one could argue is included in their points cost) for no reason other than to give everyone else a better chance against those lists.

Its been mentioned elsewhere, but one of the big gimmicks in the game right now is all the combos that people can pull off. You want to mitigate that somewhat, make a ruling as a TO to ban allies, or treat battle brothers as allies of convenience. Then watch the Jetseer armies operate without the baron, or the centurion units work without a tau commander, or a riptide lose the obligatory farseer attachment...

 Ravenous D wrote:
And screamer star won the doubles event.

Do you go to tournaments now (Alex, I know you do, but for everyone else's knowledge), have you played these types of lists, do you think they're a good thing in the game, and what would you propose to do about them, if anything?

Thimn wrote:
I wonder if just changing the way scoring objectives works is the better way to handle the situation. I had a thread about it not to long ago. If you start rewarding turns 1-4 for people actually playing them you might see a decline in some of the power of these lists.

zedsdead wrote:
taking something from what Alex said earlier and refining it a bit and making it a little bit more simplistic.
Would simply making a ruling on the Allies matrix to "ALL Allies" (even Desperate) being Allies of Convenience solve a number of bugaboos we see in the Tournament scene ? I know it wont fix all things such as the 2++ saves but i feel it does get mitigated a bit by not allowing allies to interact.

In all honest it seems more scalpelish than any other idea posted above.

Its a single rules adjustment that allows players to maintain there current builds minus the use of plug and play powerups .

 Reecius wrote:

zedsdead wrote:
taking something from what Alex said earlier and refining it a bit and making it a little bit more simplistic.
Would simply making a ruling on the Allies matrix to "ALL Allies" (even Desperate) being Allies of Convenience solve a number of bugaboos we see in the Tournament scene ? I know it wont fix all things such as the 2++ saves but i feel it does get mitigated a bit by not allowing allies to interact.

In all honest it seems more scalpelish than any other idea posted above.

Its a single rules adjustment that allows players to maintain there current builds minus the use of plug and play powerups .

That is a MASSIVE change, though. HUGE. That fundamentally alters the way army lists interact with one another. I can tell you unequivocally that that would hurt attendance to an event, at least ours based on player feedback. That changes peoples' army lists and that is also a big, giant piss off for a lot of players. If the list they bought, built, painted and have been playing for over a year is now invalid or operates dramatically different, that is not going to go over well.

I am not attacking you either, sorry if it seems that way, just saying that that is by no means a simpler solution.

If anything at all is done, which it may not be, it should not alter the way people build their lists, IMO. A change to a save says, you can still play the same list, it is still very durable, just not indestructible. As least, that is they way it sound sin my mind! haha



Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Lou

Another good question that we are not sure about in our circle, yet. We are leaning towards no, that the digital codex must be brought as that is the only way to ensure it has the most recent rules.

 Reecius wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
And screamer star won the doubles event.

Doh!

Yes, I forgot about that.

 Reecius wrote:


I don't follow what you mean, if you reward points for holding objectives turn 1-4? I think you left part of it out.

And if that is what you meant, how do you propose that that helps mitigate the deathstars we were talking about?

Oh, and also, what kind of missions do you play? Straight book or layered missions such as in the BAO/LVO, Adepticon, Feast, WargamesCon, NOVA, etc.

Thanks!

 Centurian99 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:


Mission design might be a part of a solution, but it might not as well.

Comp? I hate comp because of its subjectivity, but it did effectively kill the screamerstar in Da Boyz GT.

A "tournament force org" chart, might do something, but how do you set that up?

- Mission Design will always benefit some sort of Build... its basically the same as Comping a Tournament. Build Missions around Screamer stars and seer stars and someone will build lists around your design. And what Mission design would not benefit a 2++ save ?

- Comp same as Above. Sure Comp killed sceamer star and OvesaStar, so what happened everyone took Seerstar. Comp failure.

- Tournament force org ? Its not the allies in of themselves that make for unfun games its mostly how ICs interact and buff certain units. We can all see that GW has no clue as to what those combos can be due to the unbalance and power we have already witnessed so i have very little faith in the ability of a force org chart adjustment fixing things.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:14:08

Post by: Reecius

@Thimm

Thanks for clarifying.

I have actually played in tournaments with objective farming rules (generating points per turn) and while, admittedly it was a cool change of pace, it HEAVILY favors armies with durable troops that can jump onto objectives turn 1, such as Drop Pod marines, etc. Basically you often end up with situations where one player hits all the objectives turn 1, the other player may not be fast enough to get there to contest, the other player is already now so far out in the lead he can't lose and the game is effectively over.

Not saying it is a bad idea, but mobile armies lick their chops and that honestly doesn't stop the really abusive stuff but it can help in certain circumstances, it really isn't ubiquitous enough though, IMO.

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:18:59

Post by: zedsdead

 Reecius wrote:



They are both changes but they have very different impacts. One is ultra specific, impacting everyone the same way, the other hits everyone, often without equal impact.

Oh im sure that Eldar and Demon players will agree with you that the impact of nerfing there army is equal.

Reply by: morgendonner - click to view full reply 

14126

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:19:41

Post by: morgendonner

Just my random thoughts as a tournament player fwiw:

- Mass changes to the allies matrix is not a good idea. While it tones down some things, it opens up all new cans of worms by way of new builds which currently are blocked out. This wouldn't be a real fix to anything, it would just cause a change in the meta, and the meta always adjusts.

- I'm a little torn on the issue of 2+ re-rollables, but I'm interested to see what people think. I'm very cautious about the idea of making any modifications to the game, but for all the units/powers that people cried bloody murder about over the past few years, I think this is by far the most deserving. If, and only if, there was a consistent agreement between the major GT TO's would I think a change is reasonable. I'm not sure what would be the best suggestion, but I think at the least it's a discussion worth having between the players and TO's. It just needs to be handled the right way, and I would hate to see the game divulge into everyone taking one of the 2+ re-rollable armies. It's not that crazy to think it could happen, and we've already seen a decent amount of players shift to those armies.

- As far as the original topic of this thread goes, I think the digital releases at least as of now should be accepted by all major GTs. I wouldn't mind seeing a restriction placed on taking formations as they just directly circumvent the entire idea of a force org chart (not to mention I think everyone would agree they are clearly just a pure cash grab by GW), but I think additions like Belakor are really cool for the game. Especially with rumors of Cypher being on the horizon in the coming weeks, I think we could see GW really adding an element to the game where books get some real loving by throwing in an extra unit now and then to spice things up.

- It is definitely a hassle to keep on top of the most up-to-date rules. I think we really need to see some kind of group organized to take it on their own to stay on top of these. I think MVB was the one who mentioned the idea of "patch notes". A living document for the community by the community might be the answer.

Anyway, I'm glad to see several TO's and players in here talking about this. I think this kind of dialogue is the best thing we can have at this point while just waiting to see how some of these new GW policies hash out.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:21:02

Post by: Reecius

@Bill

You said it. It isn't even fun to PLAY those armies. I talked to the winners of DuelCon about their Screamerstars and I made the statement that those types of units have no place in the game and they agreed! hahaha, that was the funny part.

What do suggest for a solution to imbalance (if there is one or if you think anything should be done at all, which it sounds like you do)?

Maybe super heavies with weapons that ignore invul saves in the new expansion is the answer! hahaha


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Zed

Hey, please don't take this as a contest of wills, I am simply making my point. We're all here talking about this because we love organized play and want to see it grow and be fun! I hope you aren't taking this argument personally as I am not, nor do I intend it that way.

Of course those players would be upset, no doubt, but the point I am trying to make is that they still can play their list. Changing allies means some armies, that aren't even abusive at all, can't. That's a huge difference.

One option reduces something from OP to still amazingly good. The other completely eliminates it. That is a very big difference.

Reply by: DarthDiggler - click to view full reply 

782

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:24:48

Post by: DarthDiggler

 Reecius wrote:
@Thimm

Thanks for clarifying.

I have actually played in tournaments with objective farming rules (generating points per turn) and while, admittedly it was a cool change of pace, it HEAVILY favors armies with durable troops that can jump onto objectives turn 1, such as Drop Pod marines, etc. Basically you often end up with situations where one player hits all the objectives turn 1, the other player may not be fast enough to get there to contest, the other player is already now so far out in the lead he can't lose and the game is effectively over.

Not saying it is a bad idea, but mobile armies lick their chops and that honestly doesn't stop the really abusive stuff but it can help in certain circumstances, it really isn't ubiquitous enough though, IMO.

How about having a mission like this once in a tourney. Bill mentioned controlling the comp through the missions. I was always a big proponent of this and started doing it at Adepticon a long time ago. Each mission hampered an extreme playstyle. Not a codex per say, but just a spam of a certain type. Farming rules on 5 objectives would hamper lists who rely on keeping their scoring units in reserve all game long, especially if the controlling unit would be allowed to destroy the objective following a turn on holding it. All of a sudden those lists with 6 outflanking Kroot squads or reserved Jetbikes would find themselves out of objectives to hold in short order. It would force those extreme builds to begin to balance out or risk losing a mission of this type.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:31:57

Post by: Reecius

@Darth

Yeah, that is a really good point, actually. One of the only reliable ways to beat the stupid Deathstars is to kill their troops. And, things like Jetbikes and Night Scythes are the ultimate last turn objective grabbers.

I like that actually, and so long as you use a layered mission where that wasn't the ONLY victory condition so that a smart player can still play around it, that may be a good solution.

I agree 100% that it is preferable to use missions/terrain/etc. is preferable to comp/bans/nerfs/etc. I just don't know if this would be enough.

Hmm, we can play-test that in the shop against Seerstar and see how it goes, do a video bat rep for some online feedback. It's worth a shot at the least.

@Morgendonner

Good points. We feel the same way, we honestly have no desire to change the game. We just worry about the long term health of events.

And yeah, I hope if we do anything at all, it is after a lot of debate, feedback from the TOs and players and testing. No need to be hasty.

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:39:09

Post by: zedsdead

morgendonner
everytime GW releases a new dataslate TOs and the community will be holding there collective breaths. Already the Tau slate release and C:I have high meta changing potential. 34 point Ing+serv skulls do a heck of a job at shutting down scout armies. Everyone getting riptide/broadside support now.

GW is breaking the heck out of the organizational chart on a daily basis it appears.

These things are just a drop in the bucket apparently.

So yea i agree with you that going all allies of Convenience disallows combos and that could take some adjustments.. it certainly doesnt invalidate the units however. But now players also have additional options of including Deperate allies now without getting Hurt.

The idea of it is to more or less to allow more things but at a much less chance of game breaking or unfun combos.

Reply by: jamesk1973 - click to view full reply 

79398

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:52:39

Post by: jamesk1973

Remember the days when it took nearly a decade to get a new codex out for your army?

Reply by: DarthDiggler - click to view full reply 

782

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:53:52

Post by: DarthDiggler

Reecius,

Use the new Alpine mat in that batrep. I'm really itching to get my hands on that one and the Urban Assault mat.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 02:56:39

Post by: Reecius

@Jamesk

Haha, right? Be careful what you wish for! We wanted faster releases but holy crap, this was not exactly what at least I had in mind! haha

@Darth

That may take a while, as production is going on in China and we won't have a prototype in our hands until at the earliest, end of December, unfortunately. Sorry, I am dying to get them in my hands, too!

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:02:07

Post by: zedsdead

Reece no test of wills here.

However i think we do see things a bit differently.

Personally im not a fan of taking a codex or 2 and manipulating there core rules. Its a bit of a slippery slope once we start doing that. How do we address other 2++ rules. Is it simply 2++ for screamer and seerstars or all of them ? What happens when a new codex either introduces a 2++ ability does it go without saying that its banned without seeing its impact ?
What happens if a codex introduces something worse ?something that actually requires the power of the 2++ save to deal with ? or for that matter a dataslate or a new FOC adjustment ?

Where does it stop and when does the ban get pulled ?

Personally i feel that the Battle brother Allies system is the most potentially broken part of 6th edition. Its already seen its share of abuses. While core codex rules do have issues with its overpowered parts.. we as gamers can do a pretty good job of abusing the Allies system in the core rules.

btw all of the armies i play have some sort of allies in them and most do effect one another. So i totally understand how it would impact my armies and how they play. Personally i dont find it a big issue. I persoanlly would prefer to see allies working side by side without all of there crazy easter egg buffs my allies provide.

Reply by: yakface - click to view full reply 

60

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:02:09

Post by: yakface

IMHO, tournament organizers need to get onto their mailing lists pronto and start asking what their attendees want. If you don't have a mailing list to do this with, then you probably want to build one immediately because things are getting a bit crazy with 40k now, and there is never an answer that will please everyone, so the best you can do is just please the majority of your attendees.

ANY change you make pisses people off. Hell, making FAQ calls pisses people off, let alone full-sale changes to the rules to re-balance 'broken' situations. At the end of the day, we're still playing GW's game, and most people will always prefer to go with the game company's core rules, no matter how broken they are, because once you go down the road of tweaking rules for game balance, there can absolutely be no middle ground where anyone agrees what should be fixed and what should be left.

I think major tournaments (Adeptitcon, BA Open, NOVA, etc) should consider splitting their core 40k singles event into two (played on the same days at the same time running concurrently):

1) The 'wild west' format. Basically GW's rules as they stand, with whatever they say is in there (like special Riptide detachments with Preferred Enemy: SMs for no extra points cost, for example). This would be the 'pure' 40K that the high-level players who want to really brawl it out play in.

2) A 'traditional 40k' format. This would be the event that caters more to people that have a traditional army that just want to play against other armies that aren't tuned to insane levels. Here, I really do think you may want to completely disallow allies because that is where most of the crazy combos that bewilder 'casual' players come from. In this format you could also do things like reduce the 2+ invulnerable save re-roll, etc, and it won't piss people off because they still have the 'wild west' format to play in if they don't like that kind of TO 'rules adjusting' in their game.


If you did run both those formats it would also be an interesting gauge to see how many people are interested in playing a more traditional style with single armies and not so many crazy combos, and how many don't mind dealing with all the myriad of rules GW is putting out and want to play with anything that GW technically allows.

Reply by: AlexRae - click to view full reply 

78800

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:02:09

Post by: AlexRae

So no one is using these Formation things GW Digital are releasing in tournament right? Cos they are hella broken

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:11:25

Post by: Reecius

@Zed

Yeah, differing opinions it seems, which is fine! Room for everyone in our crazy hobby.

And I was saying a blanket, game wide change to 2+ rerolls, not just Screamerstar and Seercouncil. (Actually, Mike said it better than I did and I am hijacking it! haha).

That way it impacts everyone equally but doesn't change anyone's armies.

I am actually fine with allies and enjoy them, honestly, but that is me.

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:13:45

Post by: zedsdead

AlexRae wrote:
So no one is using these Formation things GW Digital are releasing in tournament right? Cos they are hella broken

I guess we will have to see what we get AlexRae so far only 1 out. But the thing is they are considered suppliments so allowable.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:14:22

Post by: Reecius

@Yak

Tastey Taste said the same thing, kind of the way it is done at Feast of Blades (although, ironically, they have the more competitive format with more restrictions).

The LVO is the next big event up (that I am aware of) and so we are definitely going to feel the impact of this craziness more than others. We are also traditionally a more inclusive event (FW and such) so our attendees are expecting more options.

I am going to write my BoLS article tonight on this topic, so we should get some good feedback there. I will also poll our attendees and see what they want.

@AlexRae

Well, Bel'AKor seems powerful but not OP so far, the Tau one is pretty gnarly though. I haven't had a chance to play either yet though so I honestly can't say.

Reply by: Matt1785 - click to view full reply 

17285

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:18:06

Post by: Matt1785

Thank you yakface for taking the words from my mouth.

You won't stop the OP things from being seen, you can't. Leave the WAAC players to their 2++ stars but also give those of us that want to have a more fluffy army the opportunity to use it on a more leveled playing field.

In this I always like to refer to the ETC. While I don't agree with ALL of the things it does, in a game such as this, composition is necessary for the fun of ALL players. Let's admit one thing, it doesn't matter how FUN or GREAT your opponent is, a 2++ star is a downer. (edit: Not saying that all people who run 2++ stars are WAAC players... Don't jump down my throat here. )

I know this is hard on tournament organizers, it practically forces you to run two tournaments at the same time, but I'd be so much more inclined to go to a tournament where there is a solid comp system that has been posted and agreed upon by the majority of organizers. You guys are the heroes, that take time out of your lives and take the risk of organizing and running a tournament. I think it only fair that we look to you guys to make a 'fair' system.

You can have a 'hardcore' no holds barred
You can have a "leveled" field event.

I think Nova already approaches this with their thematic games, but I think it would be good to see a comped tournament as well as the hardcore... Maybe just too out there, but I'd LOVE to see this, I'd attend a LOT more tournaments if I could see some kind of balance being attempted.

Reply by: Centurian99 - click to view full reply 

263

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:21:10

Post by: Centurian99

DarthDiggler wrote:
How about having a mission like this once in a tourney. Bill mentioned controlling the comp through the missions. I was always a big proponent of this and started doing it at Adepticon a long time ago. Each mission hampered an extreme playstyle. Not a codex per say, but just a spam of a certain type. Farming rules on 5 objectives would hamper lists who rely on keeping their scoring units in reserve all game long, especially if the controlling unit would be allowed to destroy the objective following a turn on holding it. All of a sudden those lists with 6 outflanking Kroot squads or reserved Jetbikes would find themselves out of objectives to hold in short order. It would force those extreme builds to begin to balance out or risk losing a mission of this type.

When Greg and I ran the Gladiator for three years, this was essentially our underlying theory. We'd pick the strongest build types and design missions that would be difficult for them to succeed in. Generally, it took a special rule of some sort to do it, but it worked pretty much like we intended it too. The vast majority of the netlist players got hosed, while the good players overcame the obstacle.

Reecius wrote:@Bill

You said it. It isn't even fun to PLAY those armies. I talked to the winners of DuelCon about their Screamerstars and I made the statement that those types of units have no place in the game and they agreed! hahaha, that was the funny part.

What do suggest for a solution to imbalance (if there is one or if you think anything should be done at all, which it sounds like you do)?

Yeah, the games where the screamerstar worked at Da Boyz weren't all that much fun. Game 1 we had really bad luck and almost lost the star in turn 2 (2 failed consecutive turns of no grimoire bonus), but we hung in there and once the 2+ save was up, rolled through our opponents. Game 2 we got lucky again and kept a stormraven from shooting and avoided having the herads periled off the table. Game 3 we took some hits, but once the rune priests were down, we steamrolled through the wolves like they were guardsmen.

As to a solution, I don't know, really. Progressive objectives don't really do it (at least in our Gladiator experience). What its really good for is generating separation among players rapidly in a battle points tournament. Special rules for missions might do it, as long as you're willing to flat out admit that you're trying to neutralize certain builds in certain missions.

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:23:53

Post by: zedsdead

 Reecius wrote:
@Zed



I am actually fine with allies and enjoy them, honestly, but that is me.

I agree and i actually love the idea of them and enjoy using them in my games. Its why i felt the compromise of going all AoC was much more preferable than the ideas of eliminating Allies all together (there seems to be a huge outcry of this). I get just as much enjoyment out of my AoC army builds as my BB builds and both have there potential of being very good armies. I also think it would be interesting to see what cool armies players would come up with if they could take DA allies as AoC.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:24:24

Post by: Breng77

I really think that fixing the seer council is the toughest fix out there. I'm not a fan of fixing all 2+ re-roll saves because an terminator Libby with precognition is tough but not broken, and can be worked around pretty easily. It is the units with mass 2++ re-rolled saves that are the issue,

You could if you wanted to fix the screamer star simply by stating that the grimoir only effects their 5++ save (natural save). They could still get 2+ cover to re-roll but ignores cover is out there or you can assault to get through that save.

Seer council is much tougher as you would either

A.) need to change how re-rolls work entirely.
B.) change fortune to something other than a re-rolled save (I have suggested ignores wound on a 4+) but then you are changing codex rules.
C.) change protect to cap at a 3+(same issue as above)

As for the allies thing....I agree that it negates far more builds than the 2+ re-roll change. Any synergistic allied build is undone (blob guard, centurion Death Star, etc...). If you ban battle brothers these armies stop using their ally models.

Reply by: Rhysk - click to view full reply 

3487

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:25:39

Post by: Rhysk

Many years ago, perhaps even before some of us were playing 40K, there was the emergence of Nidzilla. One of the first no fun, easy button armies of its day. Time passed and Nidzilla gave way to Wave Serpent Spam (the original) followed by Nob Bikers, Venom spam, Razor spam, Wolf Pod Spam, Paladin Death Stars, The Breakfast Brigade, and many others along the way. The new non-interactive boogie man on the block is the 2+ save toting combo star unit. Chicken little has certainly had many opportunities to say those magical words in the past and is taking a deep breath even as I write this. But this too shall pass.

The morale of the above story is that GW is a crazy train, and many of us have been down this road many times before. GW makes some crazy unit(s), the meta is unbalanced and then something else is released. People learn to adapt and the meta moves on.

The symptom is perceived unbalanced units. The disease is some players believe competitive list building is about making the game as non interactive as possible or win by default condition. Take a second look at the list of armies presented above, most if not all of the were based on the premise that I have a hammer you can’t stop and my plan is to beat you with it until you concede. But times change, and more importantly the game does too.

I have spent the better part of the last decade contributing to rules councils (Adepticon, INAT to name a few) and a guiding principle has always been to play the game as close to the rules as possible. There have been years worth of spirited debate on the subject. Though nothing quite stirred the hornets nest of the vocal minority like a perceived “rules change”. The accusations than surfaced of they are making their own version of 40K not playing the real version. While I never took such accusations personally, I always wished people could hear those spirited debates between what amounted to decades of 40K experience having legitimate disagreements about how to rule in sometimes impossible situations.

The one constant from GW is this, they have always advertised themselves as a MODEL company that happens to make games for their models. Look at how they present themselves to the world, “We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell  them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever” (http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/). Everything GW does is designed to sell models. This includes churning the meta of the game to induce players to update their collections. So keep calm, right around the corner is the next change that will move the meta(I’m looking at you Escalation). Perhaps Vitamin D is the cure for the common 2+ save.

Keep Calm and roll dice.

Regards,

Chris

Reply by: Dozer Blades - click to view full reply 

59251

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:43:32

Post by: Dozer Blades

"I talked to the winners of DuelCon about their Screamerstars and I made the statement that those types of units have no place in the game and they agreed! hahaha, that was the funny part."

But they still brought them anyways which seems a bit hypocritical.

If you impose a ban the WAAC players will find new ways to break the game—that is what they do. It will just shift the meta and there will still be complaints.

Reply by: yakface - click to view full reply 

60

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 03:52:03

Post by: yakface

Rhysk wrote:
Many years ago, perhaps even before some of us were playing 40K, there was the emergence of Nidzilla. One of the first no fun, easy button armies of its day. Time passed and Nidzilla gave way to Wave Serpent Spam (the original) followed by Nob Bikers, Venom spam, Razor spam, Wolf Pod Spam, Paladin Death Stars, The Breakfast Brigade, and many others along the way. The new non-interactive boogie man on the block is the 2+ save toting combo star unit. Chicken little has certainly had many opportunities to say those magical words in the past and is taking a deep breath even as I write this. But this too shall pass.

The morale of the above story is that GW is a crazy train, and many of us have been down this road many times before. GW makes some crazy unit(s), the meta is unbalanced and then something else is released. People learn to adapt and the meta moves on.

The symptom is perceived unbalanced units. The disease is some players believe competitive list building is about making the game as non interactive as possible or win by default condition. Take a second look at the list of armies presented above, most if not all of the were based on the premise that I have a hammer you can’t stop and my plan is to beat you with it until you concede. But times change, and more importantly the game does too.

I have spent the better part of the last decade contributing to rules councils (Adepticon, INAT to name a few) and a guiding principle has always been to play the game as close to the rules as possible. There have been years worth of spirited debate on the subject. Though nothing quite stirred the hornets nest of the vocal minority like a perceived “rules change”. The accusations than surfaced of they are making their own version of 40K not playing the real version. While I never took such accusations personally, I always wished people could hear those spirited debates between what amounted to decades of 40K experience having legitimate disagreements about how to rule in sometimes impossible situations.

The one constant from GW is this, they have always advertised themselves as a MODEL company that happens to make games for their models. Look at how they present themselves to the world, “We have a simple strategy at Games Workshop. We make the best fantasy miniatures in the world and sell  them globally at a profit and we intend to do this forever” (http://investor.games-workshop.com/our-business-model/). Everything GW does is designed to sell models. This includes churning the meta of the game to induce players to update their collections. So keep calm, right around the corner is the next change that will move the meta(I’m looking at you Escalation). Perhaps Vitamin D is the cure for the common 2+ save.

Keep Calm and roll dice.

Regards,

Chris

Chris,

While I agree with you in principle (people tend to overact to 'WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW?!?' too much), at the same time I do think we are in completely unprecedented territory with no signs of turning back.

People have been bringing up the number of armies that were present in 3rd edition (through all the sub-codexes) and trying to compare that to now to give some perspective. The problem with that comparison is the ally rule completely eradicates the notion of how many actual 'armies' there are in the game.

Every army matched with a different ally type is effectively a different 'faction'. So a 'Tau army with Eldar allies' is for all intents and purposes a different army than a 'Tau army with SM allies' when compared to the sub-codexes of 3rd edition. Someone should really go through and calculate all the potential 'armies' you can use in 6th edition now when you take that fact into consideration (its probably like thousands).

Now that it seems we'll be allowed to include formation datasheets on top of that into nearly any army, the whole entire concept of 'factions' is almost obsolete. You're not even choosing armies based on factions anymore, you're choosing armies based on combinations of units and rules.

But unlike previous iterations of the game there is no magic codex release coming along that is going to 'fix' things, because every codex is just an introduction of more 'best units' that can get sprinkled into every army out there.

The combinations of super-broken units working together to produce insane results and and only will get worse as more things are released as data slates to be included as 'freebies' in every army outside of the FOC.

All of this means the gap between the guy who just wants to bring a cool army from a single faction and play vs. the guys who are pulling the best units from 3 different codexes to completely dominate their opponents can and will continue to widen.

I personally don't want to play in events where nearly every army has a Riptide detachment included in it plus two other allied forces...its just stupid at this point (to me). All notion of the 'theme' of the universe has been completely sacrificed onto the altar of selling miniatures.

So while I do agree with you that we, as the players (and TOs) cannot 'fix' things for GW (only they can do it themselves and they have no interest in doing so), I do think this is truly a new level of crazy beyond anything we have seen before and IMHO, steps will need to be taken to further split the tournament field into players with different types of motivations for their tournament experience.

Reply by: bogalubov - click to view full reply 

7937

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 04:04:20

Post by: bogalubov

 Dozer Blades wrote:
"I talked to the winners of DuelCon about their Screamerstars and I made the statement that those types of units have no place in the game and they agreed! hahaha, that was the funny part."

But they still brought them anyways which seems a bit hypocritical.

If you impose a ban the WAAC players will find new ways to break the game—that is what they do. It will just shift the meta and there will still be complaints.

This is exactly right. If the council is banned and the screamer star is banned, the "competitive tournament" players will all bring the next strongest thing. Eldau, wave serpents, wraiths, mind shackle scarabs.

If we wanted to play a game where the tournament winner would be determined by skill alone, we would be playing chess.

But we choose to play a game where the rules are supplied by a model company trying to sell models. It's like expecting a drug dealer to tell you to enter rehab and get your life together. You just need to figure out why you're playing with miniatures or doing drugs in the first place. If you do either activity for fun and recreation you'll do both activities in moderation in a way that doesn't hurt anyone. If you keep chasing the dragon of winning or getting high, that's your choice too. You're just probably annoying/harming others in the process.

Now let's all go do some lines...what were we talking about?

Reply by: CaptKaruthors - click to view full reply 

463

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 04:24:14

Post by: CaptKaruthors

I agree with what Yak said. 40k has jumped the damn shark now more than ever. The stupid Tau data slate and upcoming release of Escalation is proof of that...because if that is going to be tournament legal...*sarcasm*that's just what this game needs*sarcasm*... D weapons and titans in basic games. :rolls eyes: At this point, we should all just play Apocalypse because that's what the game is slowly devolving to. If the FoC doesn't matter anymore...then that's what we are heading towards.Once that happens no amount of banning, tweaking, etc. is going to make a "competitive" game and all the competitive game people will have to surrender their mentality to what the game has become. Thus you will have a massive polarization of people who want a game likened to a chess match, those that don't give a fig what the damn rules are and just want to make pew pew sounds, and those that are slowly turning away from the game because GW is doing everything they can to ruin the fun for many by dialing up the crazy. I want to like 40k, I enjoy playing currently, but these latest additions to the "game" is really testing what little patience I have left for this game.

Reply by: morgendonner - click to view full reply 

14126

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 05:20:01

Post by: morgendonner

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
I ... and upcoming release of Escalation is proof of that...because if that is going to be tournament legal...*sarcasm*that's just what this game needs*sarcasm*... D weapons and titans in basic games.

Even with this new age of dataslates and digital releases, I don't see any reason why the Escalation book will become a tournament adopted addition. To me (and I would imagine the majority of folks) it's no different than Spearhead / Planetstrike / etc, an optional alternate mode of game play with modified force orgs and additional units for that game mode.

Reply by: MechBoyz - click to view full reply 

46182

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 06:02:22

Post by: MechBoyz

Good thread!

Lets see...

Issues with 2++, wouldn't Strength D weapons take care of the re-rollable 2+ saves?

Another option is look at all the Missions, Mission Special Rules, Warzone Traits and more to get ideas about how to make your missions challenging. Battle Missions and Altars of War are other great resources.

We had a mission at MechaniCon this year with the Warp Winds War Zone Trait - taken right from the main rule book. The screaming and cursing by some of the screamerstar and jetseer generals was very noticeable. It is not a game breaker, effects some armies more than others and that happens in addition to your normal mission victory conditions. Try some out before writing up your next event missions!


A lot of the complaints I have heard here on the forums and talking to gamers at events hit the same topics. The two most frequent can be simplified to just a couple statements:

1- I cannot afford to own a copy of every single rule that GW puts out now.

It was much easier when you had a release schedule that had some books waiting close to 10 years to get redone. Back in my day, in a grumpy old man voice, we used to get new rules supplements in White Dwarf and paid for it! Now needing to buy just the article you want is not too shabby! The fact is there are too many rules too keep up with if you want to buy models and paint. Players need to be responsible for their own rules, TO's for the rest (whether it is by owning them or borrowing ALL the rules they allow at their events).

TO's should be tied in with retailers that will help them with discounts for their event supplies which will help a lot - if you are not then go ask your FLGS to help! TO's need to be on top of the rules they allow - if you allow Forge World then you should be able to know where the latest version of the rules are and be familiar with them (and borrow a book or two for the event if required). Likewise, know where the rules are for 40K. It is clear that they have re-written the rules for some units multiple times since 6th edition hit and it is silly but that is what we have to deal with. I would rather see that then the 3rd through 5th edition release schedules.

2- Being able to take 5 Riptides in a single army is crazy!

So, yes, you can legally take 5 riptides in a single Force Org now. How many points is that though, and did you remember to bring troops besides the bare 200 point minimum? We had quite a few players criticize the missions at our GT this year because they had Victory Points (as per the rulebook) and not a Win/Loss. The same players that were bringing this feedback had gone with bare minimum troops (less than 200 points for 3 troop units in some cases) to eek out a narrow win or table their opponent (tabling an opponent would not get you max points in the missions).

The recent discussions about Time vs Points seemed to suggest that a lot of players would like 1500 point games (including the majority of the players who filled out their feedback forms with us this year) and that will fix/create a ton of issues across all problem areas. Bumping points up will allow all kind of additions to your force now if you include fortifications, super-heavies (which really are not all that Super anymore), formations and whatever term they come out with next - and that will fix/create other issues as well.

I agree with a lot of the ideas of TO's being able to make a line for each event. I don't see it the same way as was commented before that allowing all the rules is more catered to the competitive players though. I think you will be surprised to see where players sign up if you offer multiple tournament options running along side each other at the biggest events.

I do not think that allowing super-heavies equates to playing Apocalypse. That is a game where you throw down your collection for an all day brawl. Events like the Adepticon Gladiator tone down what you can bring and how many points and it has been hugely successful over the years.
How about Double Force Org and no allies?
Or, maybe mandatory Flyers in every list and Death from the Skies dogfighting rules?

Anything is possible for an event format (whew! was really hard to avoid a bad pun about a "limit" there). As long as the TO's can enjoy running it and the players have fun we all win.

40K may not be what you wanted it to evolve into but it is opening so many options for players to try something new. GW has finally joined the 21st century. It is late, but they did it none the less. They are also pumping out rules like never before. Funny thing is, some of the new rules coming now allow you to take models you already have and legally include them in your main force - isn't it about time that baneblade sitting on your shelf for years gets a chance to come out and play? Even if it is going to probably be a smoking hulk by turn 3. Seriously though, we have much nastier things in the game right now than super-heavies!

WAIT - REVELATION!!!! GW is pushing the rules and supplements over the models now???

As far as banning digital, (I bet you were wondering if I would ever get there) I would never back that up. You are asking players that bought legitimate rules and models to sign up for events. It is not hard to establish a change-log time limit for a digital book so don't make it a drama issue. Either you allow them in an event or not based on the TO's ability to be knowledgeable about the rules in their own competitions. The Stealth Updates are not going to get you in your sleep - or will they...

Reply by: Hulksmash - click to view full reply 

8617

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 06:11:07

Post by: Hulksmash

I've said it before but I'll throw it out there again.

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

My piece is said. Primarily no Escalation or Formations. And adjustment to the 2++ reroll mechanic. And the tournament system as it currently sits is fine.

Reply by: Asmodai Asmodean - click to view full reply 

69145

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 07:51:17

Post by: Asmodai Asmodean

DarthDiggler wrote:
Reecius,

In one breath you say you don't want to make a rule that invalidates what players bring, but on the other hand you say it's ok to make a rule that screamerstars can't get a 2+ rerollable save? Isn't your solution invalidating a list someone spent time buying, building and painting for a year?

Changing all allies to allies of Convienance is the simplest most non-intrusive solution presented. It invalidates no ones army at all. Everything can still be taken together. All it does it stop IC's from attaching to units from another codex. Nothing can be more benign than that.

All that is affected is power combos of units of lone models. A lone Farseer can't attach to broadsides. A lone Dark Eldar character can't attach to Jetbikes. It doesn't stop those units from being played and still being effective in games of 40k. It just stops abusive combos that shutdown a majority of the possible builds most players could bring.

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

Reply by: DarthDiggler - click to view full reply 

782

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 11:33:10

Post by: DarthDiggler

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
Reecius,

In one breath you say you don't want to make a rule that invalidates what players bring, but on the other hand you say it's ok to make a rule that screamerstars can't get a 2+ rerollable save? Isn't your solution invalidating a list someone spent time buying, building and painting for a year?

Changing all allies to allies of Convienance is the simplest most non-intrusive solution presented. It invalidates no ones army at all. Everything can still be taken together. All it does it stop IC's from attaching to units from another codex. Nothing can be more benign than that.

All that is affected is power combos of units of lone models. A lone Farseer can't attach to broadsides. A lone Dark Eldar character can't attach to Jetbikes. It doesn't stop those units from being played and still being effective in games of 40k. It just stops abusive combos that shutdown a majority of the possible builds most players could bring.

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

Ha, ha. Silly little man. I was the first Adepticon Gladiator Champion and subsequently ran it when it was the most competitive tourney at Adepticon. The singles event was a fluff monster back then. I've won the Adepticon Team Tourney and finished top 5 the 3 other times I've played. I finished top 10 nationally in the Ard Boyz in year 1 and 3. ( only times I played). Right now I finish top 3 each year in the Adeptuswindycity tounament series. I have never played a static gun line of any type and calling me a casual player is having far reaching implications for the movement of our planet through the galaxy. Next time I would suggest you sober up before posting.

Reply by: PanzerLeader - click to view full reply 

6686

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 12:15:31

Post by: PanzerLeader

I see no issues with the digital releases. I've played tournaments since 3rd and sometimes your opponent gets a surprise off on you. Good players adapt and overcome to it.

As far as invulnerable saves though, I think for my next tournament I'm going to bring over a core rule from WHFB: No Ward Save can be improved beyond a 3++.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 12:21:50

Post by: Breng77

So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Reply by: MarkyMark - click to view full reply 

62238

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 13:00:31

Post by: MarkyMark

Is the screamerstar really that good over a 6 game tourny? I am on the the no side. Too much randomness to win 6 out of 6 games. In say 1500-1850 games too many points tied up in one unit. They arent that hard to beat to be frank, yes its a lot harder against someone that knows what they are doing but they, IMO, are a king making, they arent going to win every tourny but will knock out good players and if you beat them you have a good chance of winning the tourny. Do agree that if you are going to ban Screamerstar you need to ban seer council and the other power lists, question is, where does it stop?

I also disagree with the 2 str5 ap2 attacks on the charge, totally against the rules.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 13:09:49

Post by: Breng77

It is not that they are unbeatable, and they can get unlucky, but if you don't get unlucky against the average player....the game is very much a formality (especially if they don't bring an uber competitive list)

I brought my screamer star to a tournament earlier this edition...where every other player at the store was a fairly new player....watching guys pour their entire army into trying to kill the star...and dying without killing anything.....makes for very unfun games.

Reply by: MarkyMark - click to view full reply 

62238

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 13:16:17

Post by: MarkyMark

Breng77 wrote:
It is not that they are unbeatable, and they can get unlucky, but if you don't get unlucky against the average player....the game is very much a formality (especially if they don't bring an uber competitive list)

I brought my screamer star to a tournament earlier this edition...where every other player at the store was a fairly new player....watching guys pour their entire army into trying to kill the star...and dying without killing anything.....makes for very unfun games.

For sure Breng, but taking a list like that to a tourny at a store?, can you be suprised that happened?. I was more talking about tournies rather then casual or semi competitive play (To be frank, thats how I view 1 day tournies).

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 13:30:54

Post by: Breng77

Need to practice somewhere and the store where I run my tournies routinely has high level GT players...so not expecting to find no one that even knows the rules just from going to a different store.

Reply by: Ravenous D - click to view full reply 

5859

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 14:33:46

Post by: Ravenous D

 Reecius wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
And screamer star won the doubles event.

Doh!

Yes, I forgot about that.

So, how would everyone feel about a broad rule, just one, that says:

Any save of a 2+ that is rerollable is treated as a 3+ rerollable save of the same type.

That is easy, and impacts all armies equally. As an idea, how does that strike people?

That's perfectly fair.

It stops a lot of the power builds but sadly as competition goes the next dirtiest thing will take its space. You'll see an increase in O'vesa star, Tiggy's Centstar, and that broadside unit with the buffmander. What needs to happen is the emplacement of a restricted and banned list for each army.

Actually, have a look at http://astronomi-con.com/ 's comp, it pretty much pulls out all the dirt squirrel builds and is a awesome event to boot.

Reply by: RiTides - click to view full reply 

9594

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 15:53:23

Post by: RiTides

 Hulksmash wrote:
I've said it before but I'll throw it out there again.

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

My piece is said. Primarily no Escalation or Formations. And adjustment to the 2++ reroll mechanic. And the tournament system as it currently sits is fine.

I think this is a fantastic post, Hulk! Strongly agreed.

 yakface wrote:
I think major tournaments (Adeptitcon, BA Open, NOVA, etc) should consider splitting their core 40k singles event into two (played on the same days at the same time running concurrently):

1) The 'wild west' format. Basically GW's rules as they stand, with whatever they say is in there (like special Riptide detachments with Preferred Enemy: SMs for no extra points cost, for example). This would be the 'pure' 40K that the high-level players who want to really brawl it out play in.

2) A 'traditional 40k' format. This would be the event that caters more to people that have a traditional army that just want to play against other armies that aren't tuned to insane levels. Here, I really do think you may want to completely disallow allies because that is where most of the crazy combos that bewilder 'casual' players come from. In this format you could also do things like reduce the 2+ invulnerable save re-roll, etc, and it won't piss people off because they still have the 'wild west' format to play in if they don't like that kind of TO 'rules adjusting' in their game.

I really disagree with this solution. This is extremely drastic, and I think folks will be looking for something less so. Removing allies altogether invalidates so many people's armies that I just don't think it is a good solution. You can't go back in time, allies are a standby of 6th edition and in some ways pretty cool, imo (from the "casual player" perspective, it lets you do a lot of interesting things). The problem is the combos, most of which are due to Battle Brothers, not allies in general. The 2++ is a separate issue, which is why I like Hulk's solution above (a simple "No Escalation or Formations, 2+ rerolls are rerolled on a 3+"). Note, this is only if the trend continues and the tyranid codex doesn't fix these problems by being massively anti-psycher or the like.

Reply by: Farseer Faenyin - click to view full reply 

20392

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 16:31:35

Post by: Farseer Faenyin

MVBrandt wrote:

And no ... I would argue those are as minor as it gets. Suggestions that people make like "Broad composition changes" that affect every single army are huge. Making jetcouncils and screamerstars fail 1/12 saves instead of 1/36 ... isn't huge.

I would say that taking a fun and not broken item like the Mantle from the Eldar Relics and making it unusable certainly does qualify as huge. But that's just me...

If these things are going to be banned, going one step further to limit spam of things like Vendettas, FMCs, Scythes, and Helldrakes would be next. This would level the meta MUCH better than simply hitting three Deathstars and not the spam.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 16:43:18

Post by: MVBrandt

I don't necessarily disagree as an individual, Faenyin, but I do think the more wholesale you get with changes, the harder it is to sell them to many attendees. Unfortunately there's a straight-up financial risk for any TO trying to change the game too dramatically, especially one like myself or AdeptiCon or LVO or others that are dependent on attendance to prevent 5-figure room-night shortfall hits.

Reply by: JGrand - click to view full reply 

15718

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 17:09:51

Post by: JGrand

Terms like 'abusive combos' really gall me. Every list is a combination, like it or not. Combos are what make the game fun and complex. Why doesn't everyone just play static gunline IG, because that's the ideal you have in mind for this game?

Please don't impose your narrow conception on how the game should be played on competitive players, who are looking for the most effective strategy the rules allow. Stick to casuals and narrative games.

The interesting thing is that almost all the people who are considered "competitive" players in these threads and who I've talked to in real life seem to be on the side that the 2+ re-rollable is on a different level of abuse. I think this comment by Hulksmash sums up the general consensus on these units nicely:

I've been through 5 Editions of 40k now (started in 2nd). Each one has had it's rollercoasters. But the sole difference between this rollercoaster and those rollercoasters is that the scene has never seen 3 such non-interactive armies. We currently have 2 armies that have 2++ re-rollable saves and one that's based entirely around flying FMC's. When you play these lists you wind up playing games where your opponent doesn't really interact with your army. And that is just not fun.

As a relatively seasoned GT player I'm completely in favor of altering the 2++ reroll mechanic. That and no formations would be the only changes I currently see 40k needing to keep people happy and coming to events.

Don't get me wrong, both the council and star are beatable. But the games where you do it feels more like work than fun. And events are supposed to be fun which is what draws in the majority of the people.

It is the lack of interaction that really makes the game bad. I love 40k. I love against playing cutthroat competitive lists. However, there is something completely boring about the Seer Council, Screamerstar, and even to an extent FMCs (as they can easily have a bunch of 2+ re-rollable cover). I played with Seer Council under the old Eldar dex for about 15 games this edition. I quickly found that it was both not fun for me, but also my opponents. People who were unprepared for it were beaten down badly. I suppose the same could be said of all so-called power lists, but at least the opponent gets a chance to kill some of your units en route to a loss.

Obviously, there is a level of subjectivity in this. However, is anyone here really against limiting a 2+ re-roll?

As for formations, they seem like a no-brainier in terms of not including them. Adding in a three of the best units in the game free of the HQ+Troop tax, as well as FOC slots is a joke. Spend some time looking at what can be built now using the formations. There is no army that could survive a Tau+Tau+Formation alpha strike save (ironically) the abusive 2+ re-roll lists.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 17:27:12

Post by: Breng77

I'm personally against wholesale limitting 2+ re-roll and would rather fix what is broken, as I think things like the mantle, or precog on a terminator libby are not broken. I think fixing the Mass 2+ re-roll is where you need to look.

2++ screamers

Seer Council.

Sure 2+ re-roll is not fun on a character either, but it can be worked around.

2+ cover re-roll can also be worked around (assault/ignores cover shooting.)

But Screamers and Seer council by and large cannot be.

Reply by: zedsdead - click to view full reply 

6949

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 17:42:46

Post by: zedsdead

 RiTides wrote:

I really disagree with this solution. This is extremely drastic, and I think folks will be looking for something less so. Removing allies altogether invalidates so many people's armies that I just don't think it is a good solution. You can't go back in time, allies are a standby of 6th edition and in some ways pretty cool, imo (from the "casual player" perspective, it lets you do a lot of interesting things). The problem is the combos, most of which are due to Battle Brothers, not allies in general. The 2++ is a separate issue, which is why I like Hulk's solution above (a simple "No Escalation or Formations, 2+ rerolls are rerolled on a 3+"). Note, this is only if the trend continues and the tyranid codex doesn't fix these problems by being massively anti-psycher or the like.

RiTides I agree, this is why I suggested a simple adjustment on allies matrix. Remove BB and Desp Allies and move them to AoC.

you still have your allies without the ability to build around these single IC's who hand out Hit and Run, divination and swiss army knife abilities like candy.

i.e. remove Hit and run from seer councils and now they can at least be tied up. Not a perfect fix.. but now there less unbearable.

While I agree that 2++ armies aren’t fun to play against nerfing it doesn’t fix the other bad stuff out there. Each digital release posses the possibilities of something were going to have to deal with. Fixing the allies matrix mitigates this. Sure there will be power builds within each dex.. what I find that discourages players mostly is the combos that BB's brings to the table. I cringe each time I hear players trying to figure out how they can buff a primary’s army with an ability pick and choose from there allies choice.

This isn’t now a simple matter of bolstering your army with better troops or supplementing weaknesses in your primary army... what seems to be happening now is players are wringing every bit of nastiness out of an individual power or ability to buff the hell out of an already decent unit.

That’s what’s discouraging to the average player.

As a TO I understand it’s my job to understand, learn and know what’s out there but its becoming increasingly difficult to do this. In 5th edition and earlier you needed a pretty decent understanding of the basic rules and the dexes. Now we are dealing with not only those but also a much faster Dex release time Add in Allies, supplements and now data slates. However it’s all of the trick interactions that Battle Brothers bring that really create a bigger issue for us all.. Now and in the future.

Also a little bit more on my perspective... during the run-up to BFS this year I fielded about a dozen questions about Allies. Every single one had nothing to do with general Allies issues. Every question was a very specific one on, how and if, special abilities worked with a unit they wanted to run with. Rarely were these things what I would call "fun" or interesting. They were simply trying (justifiably I might add) to power something up and possibly build around it.

The Allies Matrix adjustment might be the only thing to give us the ability to keep things in check right now and for the unforeseeable future without changing Codex rules.

Reply by: Redbeard - click to view full reply 

465

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 17:56:40

Post by: Redbeard

DarthDiggler wrote:
I was always a big proponent of this and started doing it at Adepticon a long time ago. Each mission hampered an extreme playstyle. Not a codex per say, but just a spam of a certain type. Farming rules on 5 objectives would hamper lists who rely on keeping their scoring units in reserve all game long, especially if the controlling unit would be allowed to destroy the objective following a turn on holding it. All of a sudden those lists with 6 outflanking Kroot squads or reserved Jetbikes would find themselves out of objectives to hold in short order. It would force those extreme builds to begin to balance out or risk losing a mission of this type.

The problem with attempting to correct balance with "screw-you" missions is that you end up with a lot of collateral damage; lists that are not problem children get hammered by the mission. Meanwhile, math says that if you have 30 2++(++) stars, some will be matched against each other, even in the "screw-2++(++) star" mission, and that when that happens, one of them has to win. You may have reduced the number of 2++(++) stars near the top tables, but some will get through. What's more, because they're in attendance at all, you're not improving the game for the casual players who have to face these lists in the other missions.

Unless you announce the missions ahead of time, you're not affecting the composition of the meta. And if you do announce the missions ahead of time, they make adjustments so that the "screw you" mission doesn't impact them, at least as much.

I'm really not a fan of "screw you" mission design. I feel that they hurt most players more than they harm abusive lists.

Reply by: PanzerLeader - click to view full reply 

6686

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 18:04:15

Post by: PanzerLeader

Breng77 wrote:
So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

Reply by: JGrand - click to view full reply 

15718

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 18:08:11

Post by: JGrand

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

The problem is that they can be worked around...by some. Daemon FMC is only 3rd in the pack of lists behind Tau and Eldar because those armies can largely disrupt the 2+ re-rollable cover they bring. The rest can't get around those shenanigans that easily.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 18:36:20

Post by: Breng77

PanzerLeader wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
So screamer star is bad, but Seer Council with 2+ re-rollable armor and Cover is OK?

Just so we're clear....

oh and the Shadow field from DE...is not worthless....

Ok, so let me word it a little better: No invulnerable save can be improved past a 3++. Invulnerable saves that are set by a Codex at a 2++ (i.e. Shadowfield) are unaffected by this rule.

The armor and cover saves on the Seer Council can be worked around (ignore cover shooting, assault, high AP shooting when the Eldar player fails to get invisibility, etc). You even acknowledge this a little further down.

Ummmm.... so the seer council will get at least the stock eldar power of conceal on a warlock which means they get shrouded at all times. Which means if they move at all they have a 3+ coversave (re-rolled with fortune) if they turbo boost, it is a 2+ re-rollable cover save. Also Baron Provides stealth...so there is your 2+ cover no turbo boost no invisibility....

Which yes there are some ways around but very few that bypass both armor and cover (tau Buff Commander, rolling perfect timing, and Ap 2 weapons in the assault,) which are few and far between, throw in hiding in the assault, and the Baron with a 2++ re-roll....it is really not as easy to work around as one might think.

Fixing screamerstar with no fix in for seer council (the obviously stronger army in most people eyes) seems silly to me.

I'm fine with the NO invul may be improved beyond 3++ rule actually, I just think you also need a fix for the Seer council...Which I personally think is best fixed by changing the fortune rules.

Or as many people have already state making it so that a 2+-re-rollable always fails on a 2 (or becomes a 3+ re-rollable essentially)

Reply by: undertow - click to view full reply 

49658

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 19:13:30

Post by: undertow

 bossfearless wrote:
Well, I think the problem lies in the fact that only the people who have paid for the dex (or pirated it, which I am not suggesting), can have access to it. This creates a restricted knowledge base, not unlike the Ad Mech's tech monopoly. With a physical book, it often sits up on the store shelves, allowing newer players to peruse it a bit, or the store will often have their own spare copy for player reference.

An electronic-only book causes a lot of problems when it comes to fact-checking and rules-lawyering, which become a big deal in tournament play. There was a CAD comic way back in the day about this, and it was hilarious, FYI. You can basically make whatever absurd claim you want about your "online-only expansion relic that must not be in your edition of the book because you don't get the auto-updates, so you don't get to second-guess me and no I just happen to have left my ipad at home so you can't directly check it until after the tournament." There are very few tournaments outside of GTs or other big events that will force a player to bring his codex or face disqualification. A good TO will have printouts of the latest FAQs and the wargear pages and such for the expansions, but at the rate GW is going, that is going to be an absurdly large stack of papers very soon.

TL;DR the electronic format isn't the devil, but it provides an opportunity for jerks to exploit the restricted nature of the information, and just plain cheat.

How is any of that different from a physical copy of a given codex? Only people that have paid for it or pirated a pdf have access to it. If someone has a copy that is exactly like a person having their tablet or e-reader available to look at the codex in the event of a rules dispute. If someone makes an absurd claim about a piece of wargear and doesn't have a copy (physical or electronic) available to fact check, the situation is the same.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 20:26:54

Post by: Reecius

@Hulk

Well said, dude. That pretty much sums it up for me, too. I would honestly want to go one step further and limit the dumb as Tau Commander a bit but then, that is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this line of thinking can lead down.

Caution and careful consideration are required.

I just want a fun game. A challenging, intense, competitive game. Armies that revolve around units that can't be hurt and units that can't miss, ignore cover, reroll wounds/armor pens are neither challenging nor are they fun. They are the opposite of both.

They reduce variability to the point of approaching certainty in doing something which takes any sense of skill out of the game and thus, fun.

@Rebeard

You said it. Beware unintended consequences.

I was thinking about this last night, about Darth's suggestion for objective farming. I thought, hey, this might work but then, it can screw 'normal' armies, too.

And, armies like Seerstar have Jetbikes as troops and it is conceivable that they (or an army with like units) could just zip onto every objective turn 1, rack up the points and be so far ahead they can't lose. The penalty mission turns into a book to them. Oops.

Reply by: keithb - click to view full reply 

36938

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 20:50:59

Post by: keithb

 Reecius wrote:
@Hulk

Well said, dude. That pretty much sums it up for me, too. I would honestly want to go one step further and limit the dumb as Tau Commander a bit but then, that is a perfect example of the slippery slope that this line of thinking can lead down.

Caution and careful consideration are required.

I just want a fun game. A challenging, intense, competitive game. Armies that revolve around units that can't be hurt and units that can't miss, ignore cover, reroll wounds/armor pens are neither challenging nor are they fun. They are the opposite of both.

They reduce variability to the point of approaching certainty in doing something which takes any sense of skill out of the game and thus, fun.

.

That is why I never understand why 40k guys are so opposed to comp. In fantasy we figured out pretty fast some of the rules/spells were total bs and made the game not fun. So we changed them. As time went on, we saw the affects of this change and made some other smaller changes to balance it properly. As long as you stay on top of it and keep moving in the right direction the game gets better and better.

Most game makers these days patch their gak. GW basically does not. So the community can take that job upon itself. Or get stuck with a silly game that gets sillier and sillier.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 21:10:04

Post by: Reecius

@KeithB

Because we just came off an edition that up until the end (Damn you Grey Knights!), was really balanced and during that 5-6 year span, the popular opinion shifted away from comp. Comp can and does bring an entire set of different problems with it.

It may have to come back, as much as I really dislike it, personally. There's just no objective way to implement it which is what galls a lot of us.

We'll see.

Reply by: Vaktathi - click to view full reply 

6772

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/04 21:40:57

Post by: Vaktathi

It's certainly going to be an interesting 2014. With many of the very wild supplements looking to be treated by GW as no different than the sub-codex books apparently (as opposed to the "forgotten as soon as its released" Expansions of yesteryear), I'm curious to see how much get's universally banned by tournaments (and thus usually pickup play as well since they unfortunately often go hand in hand), and how much enters general use. A lot of this doesn't seem managable for many events, I wouldn't want to TO something where a player could show up with 4 different FoC's, stuff from 3 different armies and superheavies and e-books that get regular updates (at least for their initial release period), but it should be interesting indeed to see where it all ends up

Reply by: stormboy97 - click to view full reply 

1006

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 01:09:47

Post by: stormboy97

Hey heres an idea, why dont we go back to battle points like at wargamescon.

1. If you lose a game you can climb back up and hope someone else slowed down that deathstar(whatever flaver).

2. Usually deathstars dont always get all the points or objectives so they will be getting small wins, which controls them without changing the rules or tweeking things.

3. Yes i know all you Win/Lose fanatics are going to start screeming how the best player dosnt win or there was a submarine.

4. Who has been to a big W/L event , tell me how much fun it was to lose a game due to horrible match up/ dice/ some rule you had no idea about. wow lost first or secound game might as well go play in the casino. Awesome flew across country for a single elimination event, so much fun.

5. That is why on day two you are lucky to have only a third of the people drop out, (awesome i won TIN FOIL BRACKET).

6. look at the the top 15 for wargamescon the last three years, about 7 or 8 names are there every year. so the average guy has zero chance. at least with battle points he could make top 10 or 20 or believe he could sneak in if the 5 tables in front of him tie.

But what do i know.

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 01:26:24

Post by: The Everliving

Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 01:35:19

Post by: MVBrandt

 The Everliving wrote:
Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.

Some of it is community oriented, unfortunately. Best Overall (only fifty percent competitive) is, for instance, the largest and most important award in the NOVA format. You wouldn't know it by the non NOVA coverage, however. We announce it last, call it our overall winner, give it the best prizes, sort our final standings by that metric, etc, but that only gets you so far. I *think* that's the way it is for most of the other W/L or W/L/D events and formats out there. They sort by and award highest cred and prize by Overall (which is bracket independent), while the internets thereafter glorifies by W/L // Generalship only.

I can't speak for every event, but events in general are responsible for accomplishing these emphases, regardless of wl, wld, bp, etc. Work in Progress, natch.

As an aside, I don't know that you're going to see people less eager to bring beat-face lists by awarding them higher value based upon how badly they beat people, and/or by still retaining a substantial % of their win based upon that. I DO think emphasizing Overall far more than Generalship (no matter the metric by which you determine the latter) is critical for the continued development of the hobby in the face of a very rapidly-changing game ... and also for the sake of helping improve the quality of the armies people bring (when people think generalship is all that matters, it disincentivizes the artistic quantity of energy they put into army preparation).

Reply by: NeedleOfInquiry - click to view full reply 

14887

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 01:53:23

Post by: NeedleOfInquiry

There is a reason why I or some others on occasion get bent out of shape over banning units or armies.

Don’t do it to some other army just because at this point in time that army or combination can be used to advantage.

It is not worth it in the end…

Change your prize distribution or index a score modifier based on an index derived from the top scoring armies in tournaments reporting to that website that tracks army scoring. Use a two week distribution or even monthly.

Golf scores are handicapped, why not winning army combinations? Again, only for prize distribution, not placement.

Or think of something else…

Be creative in this but try to not touch actual army abilities or anything else allowed under the current rules…

Call it the CI index or something else more appropriate...

Just my 2 cents...

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 01:55:45

Post by: Reecius

 The Everliving wrote:
Agree totally with previous post. I prefer going to a tournament where a whole bunch of people have a decent chance of winning going into the final round, rather than suffer an unfortunate loss in a W/L event and know that you can't win the whole thing. The best general prize still exists for the guy with the most wins.

There has been a shift recently to events that focus on W/L which exacerbates the problem of deathstar builds. If we start running these again I think we'll see a range of armies doing well and winning.

Personally, best overall should be the main prize and best general, best sporting and best painting should all be slightly lower tier awards.

I find this to largely be untrue. In battle points people "feel" like they can fight there way back into a tournament in theory (which is maybe one of the biggest benefits) but if you play a good player and neither of you gets that many points, you often are out. It incentivizes you to bring power lists to max out points and you can have situations where you have someone pull so far ahead, playing any more games becomes irrelevant. Pajama Pants at WargamesCon two years ago, was so far ahead he lost the last game to Ben, but still won. I was undefeated but dropped out as I mathematically couldn't catch Alan even if I maxed out every game.

Not saying it is terrible at all, and W/L/D has it's short comings too, but I strongly oppose BP tournaments in general. Others are, obviously, free to run their events how they choose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And to be fair, I also had a raging hang over at WargamesCon day two, which is a big part of the reason i dropped out! hahaha

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 02:24:33

Post by: The Everliving

I find this to largely be untrue. In battle points people "feel" like they can fight there way back into a tournament in theory (which is maybe one of the biggest benefits) but if you play a good player and neither of you gets that many points, you often are out. It incentivizes you to bring power lists to max out points and you can have situations where you have someone pull so far ahead, playing any more games becomes irrelevant. Pajama Pants at WargamesCon two years ago, was so far ahead he lost the last game to Ben, but still won. I was undefeated but dropped out as I mathematically couldn't catch Alan even if I maxed out every game.

We'll agree to disagree then. The objective statement in my post (more tournaments going W/L) certainly is true. The subjective stuff is my opinion is just that, an opinion.

You've used an example (Alan winning because he was so far ahead) that certainly can happen in events but doesn't happen all_the_time, which is exactly what happens in a W/L environment. Don't believe me? Look at dropout rates during the second day of W/L events and compare them to dropout rates of battle point tournaments. Of the three large W / L events I've been to recently (Nova, BFS and 11th Co) the hall on day 2 had decidedly fewer people than day 1 as people lost their early bracket games, realized they had ZERO chance of winning that bracket and so dropped out.

I get that you don't like battle point events. I also get that those of us who come to play at your events play by your rules and that we'll be playing in a W/L environment. This thread isn't about what type of tournament is better than another, its about what (if anything) can be done to try and level the playing field when it comes to armies being played at tournaments and whether this is a good idea or not.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 02:44:15

Post by: Reecius

@Alex

Fair enough, we can agree to disagree. And I still have fun at BP events, it's just not my preference.

ANd our events actually have a super low dropout rate day two (I think because of our 'best of' awards but is is probably due to a lot of reasons, not just the W/L/D format).

But you are right, that is not what this thread is about.

I am going to poll the LVO attendees in the very near future and ask them how they want to handle some of these issues and I will share the results here.

Reply by: morgendonner - click to view full reply 

14126

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 02:57:52

Post by: morgendonner

 Reecius wrote:
I am going to poll the LVO attendees in the very near future and ask them how they want to handle some of these issues and I will share the results here.

This should definitely give us some interesting data, please share it when you get some numbers.

It may be worth discussing with the other main TO's to get one streamlined poll put together and then everyone can send it to their newsletter groups etc, just to get even more input from the tournament community at large.

Reply by: Centurian99 - click to view full reply 

263

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 02:58:59

Post by: Centurian99

I gotta agree with Marc. Straight W/L events pretty much encourage dropping as soon as you're no longer in contention. At NOVA, I was in the 2nd bracket, after 4, lost my first game, and pretty much had nothing to do for the rest of the weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On another note, this thread does seem to be old timers reunion week or something...

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 03:17:17

Post by: The Everliving

On another note, this thread does seem to be old timers reunion week or something...

True, I've not posted this much in ages!

@Reece, looking forward to taking part in that poll. I'm curious, will you use a straight majority to influence any change to the rules or will you require a 2/3rds vote and will there be a quorum of responses you need in order to implement anything (such as at leas 128 people must reply for the vote to mean anything...)?

Reply by: Hulksmash - click to view full reply 

8617

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 04:17:30

Post by: Hulksmash

@Reece

While the buff commander is brutal he doesn't make your army irrelevant. The 2++ rerollable does. It's why it's the only change I'd be in favor of. And this is a guy who raged along beside you against comp in 5th. You said it well here, 5th was extremely balanced. 6th is as well if you just remove the 2++ rerollable (some might not agree with me and that's fine, it's the way I see it).

Also the talk of shifting BB's to AoC's is a way, way harsher penalty and doesn't affect things like Screamerstar. I'd argue it makes it stronger. And it doesn't hurt Eldar as much either if you really think about it. And it does negatively affect a lot of builds that are out there. And none that I'm currently aware of that make it unfun to play against.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 04:35:05

Post by: Reecius

@Morgendoner

Yeah, hopefully it helps! Assuming everyone is up to date on what's going on, haha.

And all the TOs are talking "behind the scenes" if you will. Everyone agrees we need to do something, but what that is (even if just to say we do nothing) is up in the air at this point.

@Bill

Haha, yes, this is a bit of a throwback! Nice to see the old hands speaking up.

@Alex

We usually go with majority as in the end, the attendees are who play in the event. We want to give everyone what they want (within reason).

If it is super close and we feel strongly on it, we may make an executive decision on it.

I will just post the results straight up for everyone to see and we can discuss it.

@Brad

Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.

But, kill their troops, that is the trick with Taudar, typically.

A game wide, modification to the one stupid thing that hurts everyone may be a good idea. It is equally applied, changes things the least and (hopefully) is all that we need to make things more enjoyable again?

We'll see!

I just don't want to play in an edition of needing 2+ rerolls to compete. That is a fin killer, IMO.

Reply by: Daytona - click to view full reply 

9502

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 05:38:22

Post by: Daytona

As a thought,

1) Would un-nerfing psychic hoods (back to table wide or even 24" range) to allow a chance to negate the powers that allow screamer/jetseer make sense? Or better yet, allow an army wide deny the witch roll against all powers (so that those without access to hoods could even do it)? Why wouldn't the raw power of a good Waaagghhh disrupt a delicate eldar casting? Make it a 6 unless you have a higher level or leadership psyker then the caster on the table in which case its a 5 -6, never better?

2) Give every player at a tourney a once a game token that can be used to force their opponent to auto fail one die roll. Would hit everyone equally, require good tactics to use well, but if used to stop a fortune or divination 4+ power going off, would allow someone a chance to hammer the star one time. Would it impact other armies worse or the same?

3) Still allow allies, but as some suggested, make everyone allies of convienance, so no joining eldar into tua units, or dark eldar to eldar to stop some bad combinations. No casting powers on units outside your own codex. It impacts other lists as well but nothing game breaking and is equal across most of the board. Heck it would allow more creativity with guard and nids fnally being a "cult" force.

Most will still find something else to use thats OP, but hey that is what top generals do, but deal with it when and only if it seems truly OP to the point of taking enjoyment out of the game.

A combination of any two of these three would not require massive rules changes, special scenarios, would not invalidate the lists that cause grief, but could make it a winnable fight. My preferences would lean towards 1 and 3. Thoughts?

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 10:47:03

Post by: Breng77

I almost have to laugh at the Battle Points as a fix. That fix IMO gives into the worst attitude in all of Gaming. "If I can't win I might as well go home" This I think is a major problem in today's environment in general. This thought that battlepoints fixes it is also a huge farce for most people. If I get blanked game one the idea that I am going to be able to come back and win the whole event is frequently laughable at best (not that it never happens but it almost never does because many other people max out each game.). Furthermore it essentially extends the "I cannot win" one game further...if I lose 2 games I might as well quit because I'm out of it....so how would this really help drop outs?

My point is while I'm not opposed to battlepoints (I use them for most events I run because having enough rounds for win loss is typically not practical.) But I almost always say that you cannot jump someone with a better record (you can still place highly but usually not win) because the scenario, where I beat you, play a harder schedule because of it and you jump me for first place when I never lose is a silly one. (That is at smaller RTTs)

At my GT it is Undefeated for Best General
Battle Points for Best Overall - who is announced last and gets the largest prize.

This year since it is likely my attendance (at least I hope) will be large enough that my rounds won't have a single undefeated- General will go to Undefeated with Highest Battlepoints.

Like Mike Said if the Community decides not to acknowledge the Best Overall Prize that is something else entirely.

Battle points just moves the bar for what the best armies are (Daemons drop down, Tau and Eldar become more powerful because they table people more easily).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daytona wrote:
As a thought,

1) Would un-nerfing psychic hoods (back to table wide or even 24" range) to allow a chance to negate the powers that allow screamer/jetseer make sense? Or better yet, allow an army wide deny the witch roll against all powers (so that those without access to hoods could even do it)? Why wouldn't the raw power of a good Waaagghhh disrupt a delicate eldar casting? Make it a 6 unless you have a higher level or leadership psyker then the caster on the table in which case its a 5 -6, never better?

2) Give every player at a tourney a once a game token that can be used to force their opponent to auto fail one die roll. Would hit everyone equally, require good tactics to use well, but if used to stop a fortune or divination 4+ power going off, would allow someone a chance to hammer the star one time. Would it impact other armies worse or the same?

3) Still allow allies, but as some suggested, make everyone allies of convienance, so no joining eldar into tua units, or dark eldar to eldar to stop some bad combinations. No casting powers on units outside your own codex. It impacts other lists as well but nothing game breaking and is equal across most of the board. Heck it would allow more creativity with guard and nids fnally being a "cult" force.

Most will still find something else to use thats OP, but hey that is what top generals do, but deal with it when and only if it seems truly OP to the point of taking enjoyment out of the game.

A combination of any two of these three would not require massive rules changes, special scenarios, would not invalidate the lists that cause grief, but could make it a winnable fight. My preferences would lean towards 1 and 3. Thoughts?

1.) is a massive change that hurts any build with psykers not just the deathstars...and effects those armies a ton, whereas non-psychic armies get nothing but buffed (Tau and Necrons are hardly weak so this does nothing but buff them)

2.) All players are not effected equally. Screamer star flat out becomes useless, I move out with my 2++ get into the open you force the grim to fail and I die...Seer Council is fine if I roll 2 fortunes, or just tank a turn with my regular 2+ save, especially if I can get into combat before you force me to fail.

3.)Stops lots of "harmless" combos as well...not horrible, but not great either.

Reply by: Thimn - click to view full reply 

11118

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 11:43:04

Post by: Thimn

Doing something to limit Psyker Powers is really the issue at hand. Your 2+ Rerollable units are only possible because of Psykers. What other combination of allies/units is out there that is wrecking everything? The Buffmander is clearly powerful but he isn't having anywhere near the same effect as your Seer and Seeker stars.

The game needs the ability to more reliably Deny the Witch on Blessings.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 12:21:57

Post by: Breng77

I'm ok with that on a certain level , but at the same time The Buffmander is very powerful and has IMO near the same effect in many scenarios as 2+ re-rollables do on the fun level of a game, unless terrain is sufficient (which it is often not).

Would having a 6+ deny really do much to these units other than throw in a bit more random chance that they would lose?

That is how it works now largely. Did he fail a key roll yup...the unit dies...nope...it lives....that is what makes it dumb and unfun. I think fixing Deny the witch is a worse fix than just fixing the 2+ re-roll issue.

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 13:54:45

Post by: The Everliving

Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.

Bill mentioned it as well, I find the Swiss Army Commander the most aggravating model in the game.

Reply by: Centurian99 - click to view full reply 

263

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 14:54:22

Post by: Centurian99

 The Everliving wrote:

Yeah, perhaps the Tau Commander is my personal bias. It annoys the living hell out of me that a unit can eliminate to many variables.

Bill mentioned it as well, I find the Swiss Army Commander the most aggravating model in the game.

To be specific, I find the proliferation and ease of acquiring the ability to reliably ignore cover to be the annoying as heck, more so than the jetseer council. The Swiss Army Commander is just the most glaring example of this. But my army has access to easily nerfing their hit and run and 2++ rerollable, so that affects my thinking.

Reply by: Breng77 - click to view full reply 

52309

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 15:13:28

Post by: Breng77

NO I agree with you. I feel fairly strongly that the mass amount of Ignores Cover torrent of fire, is part what brings people to playing the 2+ re-roll saves armies.

Reply by: MarkyMark - click to view full reply 

62238

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 15:16:30

Post by: MarkyMark

Thimn wrote:
Doing something to limit Psyker Powers is really the issue at hand. Your 2+ Rerollable units are only possible because of Psykers. What other combination of allies/units is out there that is wrecking everything? The Buffmander is clearly powerful but he isn't having anywhere near the same effect as your Seer and Seeker stars.

The game needs the ability to more reliably Deny the Witch on Blessings.

Something that has been delibratly taken out by GW. No more runes of warding 3d6 tests, rumours point to no 3d6 for SITW and no psyhic hood denies.

Reply by: Reecius - click to view full reply 

2776

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 15:45:38

Post by: Reecius

Well, I am not alone on the Buffmander, then.

As for the 2+ reroll, there are a lot of ways to get it without psychic powers.

Fateweaver and the Grimoire
Mantle of the Laughing God
2+ and Wolf Standard
MoT and any 2+ save
etc.

It is dumb, plain and simple (well, plain and simple to me).

I am going to send out the LVO questionnaire this Friday, and let it run through Monday, posting results Tuesday.

With the formations coming out, it will be possible (theoretically, not via points) to have like, 6 different books in the same list! haha, that can be fun but holy crap that gets to be insane at some point.

I would love to use my Super Heavies more often, but in a tournament? The Khornemower can get 10 strength D attacks and he moves 12"!

My Revenant can fire 4 Str D pie plates a turn and moves 36" haha, that is cool but again, in a tournament?

These are questions we need to think about. We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

Reply by: RiTides - click to view full reply 

9594

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 17:46:30

Post by: RiTides

 Reecius wrote:
We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

I agree with this a lot. Despite language that there was no other way to go, in 5th edition the primary push to "no comp" was because that's the game most people wanted to play at the time (since there was a rather balanced ruleset in place), not because there was no other alternative.

But things are very different now. Honestly, if this keeps up I'll just go to comped events and let folks have all their formations, escalation, and whatever other bizarro world GW wants to put out as a cash grab. Formations that exactly match the GW Christmas bundles? Heh.

To hear even people like Reecius and MVBrandt (TOs who in my mind champion the idea of competitive play) talking of resurrecting some form of comp shows just how bad things are about to get. I think folks have to recognize that events play a very large role in "shaping the game we want to play" as Reecius aptly puts it. I like the idea of "least amount of disturbance possible", but the fact is that GW is forcing TO's hands on this. GW doesn't run events, and are putting out rules that make the running of said events a nightmare. At some point people are going to have to counteract that... and it seems that point may be soon.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 18:03:11

Post by: MVBrandt

 RiTides wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
We need to take responsibility for shaping the game we want to play.

I agree with this a lot. Despite language that there was no other way to go, in 5th edition the primary push to "no comp" was because that's the game most people wanted to play at the time (since there was a rather balanced ruleset in place), not because there was no other alternative.

But things are very different now. Honestly, if this keeps up I'll just go to comped events and let folks have all their formations, escalation, and whatever other bizarro world GW wants to put out as a cash grab. Formations that exactly match the GW Christmas bundles? Heh.

To hear even people like Reecius and MVBrandt (TOs who in my mind champion the idea of competitive play) talking of resurrecting some form of comp shows just how bad things are about to get. I think folks have to recognize that events play a very large role in "shaping the game we want to play" as Reecius aptly puts it. I like the idea of "least amount of disturbance possible", but the fact is that GW is forcing TO's hands on this. GW doesn't run events, and are putting out rules that make the running of said events a nightmare. At some point people are going to have to counteract that... and it seems that point may be soon.

This is a reasonable and accurate post. We aren't necessarily there, I don't think we are yet, but we may get there. It's possible to get there. Most can agree it's feasible that there would be a point where the unfettered game would be unplayable at a tournament level. If mission design and terrain and other factors can't help manage the situation, there are other courses you can take. I'm not personally there yet, but at least we're being responsible in paying attention, listening to what our constituents are telling us, and being prepared in advance if we MUST make adjustments.

Reply by: Polonius - click to view full reply 

752

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 18:25:53

Post by: Polonius

I think it's encouraging that people are aware of the problems, and how those problems are both similar to prior editions yet different, either in kind or in degree.

Ultimately, tournaments thrive on the silent majority of gamers that aren't building new top tier armies, aren't expecting to win, and are looking to have good, challenging games. What they want will shape the tournament scene, one way or the other.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 18:40:37

Post by: MVBrandt

 Polonius wrote:
I think it's encouraging that people are aware of the problems, and how those problems are both similar to prior editions yet different, either in kind or in degree.

Ultimately, tournaments thrive on the silent majority of gamers that aren't building new top tier armies, aren't expecting to win, and are looking to have good, challenging games. What they want will shape the tournament scene, one way or the other.

This!

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???" that I start to perk up more, and that noise has been filtering up. I don't really care if some internet tough guy thinks he can take it down and it's no different from anything in the past. That opinion is almost entirely meaningless, unless it's reflected in the feelings of the majority of those who'll pay their good money to keep us from losing thousands and failing to be able to continue to run events.

Reply by: Lansirill - click to view full reply 

14698

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/05 22:50:08

Post by: Lansirill

Well, this looks like a great spot to actually stick my not-terribly-competitive player neck into the conversation. I've honestly only been to a few tournaments so whatever I say is liberally crusted with salt. When I go I'm not expecting to win; frankly I look at whatever portion of my entrance fee goes towards prize money as a complete waste (I'm curious how much actually goes to prize support.. from my limited knowledge the fee mostly goes to running the event, bu that's another conversation.) I go to have fun, not think hard. The more special rules, weird combinations, and things I've never heard of I have to deal with the more I have to think.

All that said the electronic supplements, so far, haven't really been that bad in terms of making me know crazy new rules. It's incredibly frustrating that I have a harder time getting my hands on all of the rules these days, but I haven't come across anything yet that's really bad (although I know almost nothing about the Inquisition book... that might be horribly confusing) except for Adepta Soritas; that has nothing to do with power or balance, but rather that I could see being hit with that book without having seen it before would be a huge PITA to keep track of. Any codex is going to be like that though, so I can't really use that as an example of electronic being bad.

Now comp or some patches to address game balance? Yeah, that'd be nice. The problems don't seem to be coming from electronic supplements though.

Reply by: Thariinye - click to view full reply 

68803

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 00:11:38

Post by: Thariinye

To echo Lansirill, it does seem like there are two simultaneous situations that are coming to a head right about now.

Situation A: Rules Overload.
40k is not an easy game to get into at the easiest of times; there's a lot of rules governing many different situations, and due to GW's business model, those rules are separated into different things that must be paid for. Learning the rules of each army on a competitive level requires a lot of money. Now with the large increase in rules, it's becoming too much for many to keep up with. Furthermore, the additions bend some of the more traditional rules like Force Org Charts. This is the '6 books in a single army' problem.

Situation B: Degeneracy.
There are some pretty degenerate combinations available in the game right now, that typically lead to un-fun games for the opponent, and often the player of the combo. Powerful combinations are alright, but ones that basically nullify large sections of the rules can be off-putting to many who aren't totally prepared to deal with it. Even in that situation, the games that result are often not the ones that people play 40k to have. If the perception of the potential tournament-goer is that they will just get smashed by one of these armies without having any fun, there's no point in going. If tournaments are supposed to foster a fun, competitive, and challenging play environment, these combos may need to be addressed.

Note that Situation B doesn't, in large part, result from Situation A. The Degenerate combinations use Standard Ally 6th Edition rules that most people like in principle, and which appeared significantly before the current Rules Overload. In fact, most of the degenerate combos are from a single Codex, with Allies putting them a bit further over the top. Baron + Seerstar (Basically ignoring most rules about ability to destroy units), Buff Commander + Riptide/Broadsides/Whatever (ignoring rules of shooting with rerolls to everything and ignores cover). The Seerstar is nigh-invincible even without Baron, but Stealth, H&R, and Grisly Trophies put them another step above. The Buff Commander and Riptide are in the same Codex. The fact that one of the tipping points leading to now was a Rules Overload supplement that featured the Riptide and Broadsides, part of the Degenerate combo with the Buff Commander, means that these two situations can get confused easily.

Most of the Supplements are pretty reasonable IMO. Clan Raukaan or Iyanden don't particularly unbalance the game in and of themselves for example, but they do result in a lot of questioning as to what they do. It feels a lot like home-brew rules when only the player of that army really knows the rules for that army.

I go to tournaments to have fun, be challenged, and maybe win something if I'm good. If I'm not winning, I'm okay with that, very few people win things. If I'm not challenged, well, it's a less stressful experience at least for me. But if I'm not having fun, why should I spend all this time and money preparing to do this in the first place?

Just my 2c.

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 02:00:50

Post by: The Everliving

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???"

To which the answer as a TO should be "No I'm not, It's a perfectly allowable unit in the rules and your opponent was not cheating in any way. I'm sorry you came unstuck against it."

It shouldn't be "You know what you're right, lets tone that bad boy down and make it a 2+ followed by a 3+. In fact, while we're at it we're going to take away fateweaver's reroll because that makes it too hard to beat a daemon army, and we're going to stop tau commanders allying with anyone except Tau because Space Marine Centurions with ignore cover is too unfair.."

That last sentence was meant to be hyperbole but you get the point. A TOs job is sometimes to just commiserate with folks.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 02:12:24

Post by: MVBrandt

 The Everliving wrote:

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???"

To which the answer as a TO should be "No I'm not, It's a perfectly allowable unit in the rules and your opponent was not cheating in any way. I'm sorry you came unstuck against it."

It shouldn't be "You know what you're right, lets tone that bad boy down and make it a 2+ followed by a 3+. In fact, while we're at it we're going to take away fateweaver's reroll because that makes it too hard to beat a daemon army, and we're going to stop tau commanders allying with anyone except Tau because Space Marine Centurions with ignore cover is too unfair.."

That last sentence was meant to be hyperbole but you get the point. A TOs job is sometimes to just commiserate with folks.

Commiseration doesn't always get you so far ... Mr. Ignores the Best Overall at NOVA Despite Winning it Before :p (meant in fun, but maybe a little irritation that encouraging people to drop if they desire is used against us, as is an emphasis on generalship ranking that is in contrast to how we as the actual event organizers emphasize and rank things).

I don't think it's all about commiseration ... it TENDS to be ... but if you had 9/10 people not wanting something ... the smart thing to do as a TO is usually to not have it. If the NOVA only sold half its GT tickets, I'd personally lose tens of thousands of dollars in unfilled hotel room-nights. So it's a little more serious than just flinging my arms around someone's shoulder. That said, I'll continue to reiterate I haven't had any personal firm leanings toward rules changes at present ... there's a lot of meta development and new releases ahead still.

Reply by: DarthDiggler - click to view full reply 

782

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 02:27:26

Post by: DarthDiggler

MVBrandt wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???"

To which the answer as a TO should be "No I'm not, It's a perfectly allowable unit in the rules and your opponent was not cheating in any way. I'm sorry you came unstuck against it."

It shouldn't be "You know what you're right, lets tone that bad boy down and make it a 2+ followed by a 3+. In fact, while we're at it we're going to take away fateweaver's reroll because that makes it too hard to beat a daemon army, and we're going to stop tau commanders allying with anyone except Tau because Space Marine Centurions with ignore cover is too unfair.."

That last sentence was meant to be hyperbole but you get the point. A TOs job is sometimes to just commiserate with folks.

Commiseration doesn't always get you so far ... Mr. Ignores the Best Overall at NOVA Despite Winning it Before :p (meant in fun, but maybe a little irritation that encouraging people to drop if they desire is used against us, as is an emphasis on generalship ranking that is in contrast to how we as the actual event organizers emphasize and rank things).

I don't think it's all about commiseration ... it TENDS to be ... but if you had 9/10 people not wanting something ... the smart thing to do as a TO is usually to not have it. If the NOVA only sold half its GT tickets, I'd personally lose tens of thousands of dollars in unfilled hotel room-nights. So it's a little more serious than just flinging my arms around someone's shoulder. That said, I'll continue to reiterate I haven't had any personal firm leanings toward rules changes at present ... there's a lot of meta development and new releases ahead still.

Don't you run the risk of solving a problem that hasn't developed yet? Nova has not had a serious drop in attendance and hotel rooms are not going unsold. Creating a solution to a 'might be' problem could lead to the problem happening in the first place.

Reply by: MVBrandt - click to view full reply 

14076

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 02:34:52

Post by: MVBrandt

DarthDiggler wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 The Everliving wrote:

It's when I hear these average gamers going "Mike are you going to do anything about those jetbike council thingies with the 2+ re-rollables???"

To which the answer as a TO should be "No I'm not, It's a perfectly allowable unit in the rules and your opponent was not cheating in any way. I'm sorry you came unstuck against it."

It shouldn't be "You know what you're right, lets tone that bad boy down and make it a 2+ followed by a 3+. In fact, while we're at it we're going to take away fateweaver's reroll because that makes it too hard to beat a daemon army, and we're going to stop tau commanders allying with anyone except Tau because Space Marine Centurions with ignore cover is too unfair.."

That last sentence was meant to be hyperbole but you get the point. A TOs job is sometimes to just commiserate with folks.

Commiseration doesn't always get you so far ... Mr. Ignores the Best Overall at NOVA Despite Winning it Before :p (meant in fun, but maybe a little irritation that encouraging people to drop if they desire is used against us, as is an emphasis on generalship ranking that is in contrast to how we as the actual event organizers emphasize and rank things).

I don't think it's all about commiseration ... it TENDS to be ... but if you had 9/10 people not wanting something ... the smart thing to do as a TO is usually to not have it. If the NOVA only sold half its GT tickets, I'd personally lose tens of thousands of dollars in unfilled hotel room-nights. So it's a little more serious than just flinging my arms around someone's shoulder. That said, I'll continue to reiterate I haven't had any personal firm leanings toward rules changes at present ... there's a lot of meta development and new releases ahead still.

Don't you run the risk of solving a problem that hasn't developed yet? Nova has not had a serious drop in attendance and hotel rooms are not going unsold. Creating a solution to a 'might be' problem could lead to the problem happening in the first place.

Well, my point is simultaneously that there IS no problem to this degree, and I don't see one developing. So yeah, to make any decisions right now would be absurd in the extreme. My main focus is on revising both the method and presentation of the format so it addresses some of the broader concerns various types have (ie emphasis). I'm part of the conversation here only in a wait-and-see mode ... I'm watching and paying attention to what I'm hearing, but I'm dug heels in against any kind of present change.

Also, NOVA sold (after pre-drops) a total of like 270-some unique 40k GT tickets alone, and sold out a couple of times over. We're definitely not in panic mode! The point is more that just b/c something is part of the game doesn't mean you can always solve it with commiseration; I was presenting a hypothetical, not bemoaning my actual condition.

Reply by: The Everliving - click to view full reply 

6148

Electronic-Only Codexes in Tournaments @ 2013/12/06 16:47:30

Post by: The Everliving

Commiseration doesn't always get you so far ... Mr. Ignores the Best Overall at NOVA Despite Winning it Before :p (meant in fun, but maybe a little irritation that encouraging people to drop if they desire is used against us, as is an emphasis on generalship ranking that is in contrast to how we as the actual event organizers emphasize and rank things).

Mike, I LOVE the fact I won best overall at Nova. It comes up as example when the young whippersnapers these days ask me. 'Have you ever actually won anything recently?'

The W/L format favored by many events tends to focus on the best general though, even if the organizers are trying to place a higher emphasis on best overall.