So, my local store hasn't had any tournaments for a while now, and I want to get things started again, so I'm considering volunteering as a TO. Most of what I would be doing is fairly straightforward-- book or BAO missions, win/loss scoring, etc. I'll probably take a poll of the likely playerbase to see whether people want Forge World or not.
However, there is one somewhat unusual rule that I am considering-- I kinda want to just say "No model may reroll an unsuccessful 2+ save for any reason." I don't actually think the armies with rerolling 2+ saves are too good-- in many respects I consider them gimmicky and limited. But the simple fact of the matter is that those armies are extremely unfun for people to play against, especially those that aren't as used to the tournament scene. Since this would just be a friendly store tournament designed to get people back in the game after a bit of a hiatus, I'm tempted to just ban rerolling 2+ saves completely in the interest of having a more fun experience for the attendees.
I know that some people might not be fond of this change, though, and I wanted to run it by people on Dakka before proposing it to the local group. What do you guys think? Would you be willing to attend a tournament with this rule in effect?
For example Tzeentch Daemons have the ability to re-roll one's, so a 3++ re-rolling ones is fine but 2++ isn't?
Most of the combo's used to get a re-rollable 2+ generally has some element of luck involved (i.e. psychic powers forewarning+ grimnoire/invisibility/fortune). Personally I wouldn't have an issue attending a tournament with said restriction but I'd be interested to see how you worded/phrased it.
My opinion is that we play the game as it is. If anyone started to ban what he personally disliked... Dunno it feels so wrong.
The game has rules and rules are not to be broken. Best idea is to make people play casual games instead of fully competitive lists.
You can't force people to follow your changes. That is why we buy rulebooks.
But the rules are fundamentally broken in themselves
I agree with no re-roll 2+ saves, honestly I can only think of 2 armies that can do this (Daemons and Eldar) and both can field non-deathstar lists that rock (Circus for Daemons and Serpent-spam for Eldar)
When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.
When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.
This really isn't what the OP is about though. He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.
Could go for how Chaos does Mark of Tzeentch. Invul saves are increased to a minimum of 3+.
Wouldn't totally support it though. A rerollable 2+ Fateweaver is doesn't really break anything.
Debatable. A Grimiored Fateweaver is a perpetual tarpit to anything without hit and run. He is also a basically invincible unit that can move 24" and run 2d6 to contest. Oh, and the rest of his FMC buddies can go on and off the board at will. Run by a good player, he is pretty bad.
When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.
This really isn't what the OP is about though. He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.
Could go for how Chaos does Mark of Tzeentch. Invul saves are increased to a minimum of 3+.
Wouldn't totally support it though. A rerollable 2+ Fateweaver is doesn't really break anything.
Debatable. A Grimiored Fateweaver is a perpetual tarpit to anything without hit and run. He is also a basically invincible unit that can move 24" and run 2d6 to contest. Oh, and the rest of his FMC buddies can go on and off the board at will. Run by a good player, he is pretty bad.
Unless you were at BFS or other places that allow RAW tank shock surround insta-gibbing of FMC (insta-gibbing regular MC is totally legit if they don't stop you with the DOG ... but due to some funky interaction of a GWFAQ w/ RAW, the FMC don't even get to DoG).
jy2 wrote: Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.
If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.
This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.
Odds of failing:
3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12 2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36
That is the best solution I've heard / chatted about of those being proposed roundabout. Don't know if any solution is mandatory yet, but if one is really craved by the community, I think this is the least obtrusive and easiest to express. TBD on need, however.
Yes to a ban on the re-rollable 2++. Whether or not it's technically balanced in that the top competitive lists/players have a chance to beat it isn't really that important, for most people it's an incredibly frustrating thing to play against even if you win. It's bad enough in a hardcore competitive event, but in a casual "get back into the game" tournament there's a very real risk that if someone brings one of those lists their opponents are going to quit 40k again because of how little fun they had with their attempt to come back.
Swastakowey wrote: When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.
That would be a terrible idea because "theme" is a subjective thing and everyone has a different opinion about what qualifies. If you have a TO arbitrarily deciding whether you're playing a "themed" list or not you can almost guarantee a lot of people will be unhappy with that decision, and not just because their flimsy attempt at justifying the "theme" of their netlist.
DarthDiggler wrote: If we ban the rerollable 2+, can we ban the army which torrents you off the table by turn 2? After all the rerollable 2+ is the counter to that.
Proper LOS-blocking terrain should be able to prevent the Turn 1 tabling....unless the opponent is foolish enough not to take advantage of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And here's a little rant for the new Escalation supplement.
Wanna bring in D-weapons to counter the re-rollable 2++ shenanigans. Really? Solve a problem (rules imbalance) with a much bigger problem (by making the game even more unbalanced with D-weapons)? 2 wrongs don't make a right.
CaptainJay wrote:Are you just going to limit it there?
For example Tzeentch Daemons have the ability to re-roll one's, so a 3++ re-rolling ones is fine but 2++ isn't?
Most of the combo's used to get a re-rollable 2+ generally has some element of luck involved (i.e. psychic powers forewarning+ grimnoire/invisibility/fortune). Personally I wouldn't have an issue attending a tournament with said restriction but I'd be interested to see how you worded/phrased it.
Yeah. For simplicity's sake, the rule would just be "you cannot reroll an unsuccessful 2+ save."
Swastakowey wrote:When asking for pre tournament list entries why not make everyone have a definative theme. Where the army has to make sense. Like if your going for an airbourne company with guard chances are they wouldnt have heaps of russes on the ground. Or you wouldnt get crazy allies mixing and matching because everyone has to take fluffy themed lists. Obviously its something you will look into on a list by list standard but as someone who is completely put off by tournaments that would be something that would interest me.
Too restrictive and subjective. In a narrative event, that would be fine, but this is supposed to be a tournament of the conventional type-- I just want to make sure nobody has a rough experience.
NamelessBard wrote:You could just state that the lowest invulnerable save is 3++ except for rare cases (i.e. Grazy Waaagh).
That would be easier, but 2+ invulnerable saves are fine, while 2+ rerolling cover saves aren't.
JGrand wrote:He isn't worried about fluff, just game balance. It is increasingly clear that the re-rollable 2+ is on a new level of broken.
I disagree. I have played against rerollable 2+ save armies and beaten them with a balanced composition. I do not think they are broken at all. However, I do think that they can lead to completely unfun games, especially for less experienced players. I'm more concerned with ensuring that people have a fun time than with rebalancing the game.
jy2 wrote:Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.
If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.
This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.
Odds of failing:
3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12 2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36
I like this rule, but it seems kind of complicated. I'm not sure whether people will go for it. It's definitely a good middle ground though.
DarthDiggler wrote:If we ban the rerollable 2+, can we ban the army which torrents you off the table by turn 2? After all the rerollable 2+ is the counter to that.
Quite frankly, you should never be torrented off the table at all-- much less on turn 2-- with proper terrain and tactics.
We're going to poll the LVO attendees on this, too, see what they say which is a pretty big pool of players to get data from (assuming they respond! haha)
The list may be too long and subjective. However, one thing I feel we definitely shouldn't have in non-Apoc tournament games is Destroyer weapons brought in through the Escalation supplement. That is probably the only thing that I am against in normal tournament play, with the exception of "Gladiator-style" tournaments.
I don't have strong feelings about this, but you will make The Mantle of the Laughing God useless; the 2+ re-rollable cover save was clearly an intended effect of this very expensive piece of gear.
It does feel a little arbitrary though. There are some other combos/units that allow for nearly no-brained auto-win strategies as well.
jy2 wrote:Here's a decent houserule, as proposed by Zagman.
If you have a unit with a re-rollable 2+, on the second attempt, it becomes a 4+ only.
This makes it better than a re-rollable 3+ but not quite as broken as re-rollable 2+'s.
Odds of failing:
3+/3+ -> 1 in 9
2+/4+ -> 1 in 12 2+/3+ -> 1 in 18
2+/2+ -> 1 in 36
I like this rule, but it seems kind of complicated. I'm not sure whether people will go for it. It's definitely a good middle ground though.
IMO, a middle-ground is better than an outright ban. Logically, it also makes more sense that a modified re-rollable 2+ is still better than a re-rollable 3+ (whereas a ban makes it actually worse). This will give the player still some advantage to having re-rollable units, though nowhere near as ridiculous as the original RAW. At the same time, they are still quite killable. Anyways, that is just my opinion. I'm pretty sure opponents won't object to this rules change. Better than playing against a fully re-rollable 2+ unit in a tournament where there are no rules changes at all.
With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.
Dude_I_Suck wrote: With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.
One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.
Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.
In all honesty A re-roll-able 2+ cover or 2+ armor is OK it is when the save hits 2++ re roll-able that i lose my stuff all over. There are ways to remove cover, or reduce it, there are ways to get around armor, but a invulnerable 2++ reroll-able? BAHhummerbugs.
One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.
Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.
Again, except for the Mantle Seer/Autarch should you choose to go that way. And that's only true of the Seer council with the Baron attached. Banning allies would get rid of that problem. And the tediousness of Taudar. But that's an off-topic issue.
Peregrine put a good perspective on it, and changed my opinion. If your intent is to try and respark interest in tournies, and draw people back into competitive play, then banning the most obscene of the combos seems pretty reasonable.
For a more hardcore, veteran-friendly tournament, I'd be kind of disappointed. If I go to a competitive event, I expect to compete 'without pads' as it were. I don't want to feel like I only won because the daemons player couldn't bring his optimal list.
Having a 'banned' or 'restricted' list works for CCGs because they have a rotating cycle of ever-newer cards and combos. The cycle is much slower in 40k, and introduces far fewer new combo elements with each revolution. I'd probably be pretty miffed if I showed up to find that the local TO had banned, say, allies, especially after I've dropped a significant amount of money and time organizing a small arsenal of allied detachments for my Marines.
Still, for an event for beginners, or to rekindle waning interest in competitive events (especially to protect an easily-burned community from the depredations of out-of-town tourney hustlers ) this could be a very good idea.
Dude_I_Suck wrote: With so much stuff ignoring cover, the 2+ cover save reroll would be a non-inclusion. the big problem is the 2+ invul. There is no real way to get around it other than rune priests/things that mess with their psychic tests (which are VERY few). 2+ cover can be denied, 2+ invul requires tools that are not prevalent in many codices anymore.
One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.
Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.
Doesn't it get Hit and Run from the Baron?
If that's the case, then maybe the solution is one that I've been pushing: disallow Allies in the tournament. It stops the really obnoxious combinations. Screamerstar will still be on the table but there are ways of dealing with it (i.e., Barrage the guy with the Grimoire, for example).
Yes, the seer council gets H&R from the Baron, which IMO is why the seer council is superior to the screamerstar.
Disallowing allies is a more extreme form of banning that may turn a lot of people off. If there's something TO's don't want to do is to turn off people to his tournament. Thus, going too extreme usually isn't advisable unless the TO knows that most of the participants wouldn't mind.
Lets ban Markerlights while we are at it! They ignore cover sooo broken!
Lets also ban Combat Focus since running and shooting is against the rules normally
Banning anything is just silly and childish in my point of view, its not like units that can do this are cheap or anything.
You say it's not fun for people to play against these armies, if majority of players find it not fun to play against Eldar and Tau should we ban them as well?
jy2 wrote: Yes, the seer council gets H&R from the Baron, which IMO is why the seer council is superior to the screamerstar.
Disallowing allies is a more extreme form of banning that may turn a lot of people off. If there's something TO's don't want to do is to turn off people to his tournament. Thus, going too extreme usually isn't advisable unless the TO knows that most of the participants wouldn't mind.
This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.
And that was an actual question, not an internet-I'm-trying-not-to-sound-like-a-jerk-but-making-it-worse-thing. I really appreciate the way you comport yourself in these forums and you're a far more experienced player than I am, so I'd like to get your take on that.
I could easily see banning allies outside the IOM, and guard/chaos being embraced by a lot of players.
Purple Saturday wrote: This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.
I think most people would probably disagree with that, because banning allies inherently affects all players and all armies whereas altering the mechanic of 2+ re-rollables only impacts a few units. Depending on how it's carried out, it wouldn't even ruin those units just tame them down a little versus eliminating unique armies from the game (keep in mind, the vast majority of players enjoy allies that are not abusive at all). Also it's important to remember that one of the main units we are talking about (screamerstar, fateweaver, or any other 4+ invul daemon for that matter) would not be affected by the loss of allies at all.
Purple Saturday wrote: This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.
I think that banning allies would be unacceptable to most players, simply because the vast majority of allies combos are not unfun to deal with-- while the vast majority of rerolling 2+ saves ARE unfun to deal with.
I personally don't like house ruling anything. I'll play it by the rules untill the next faq or edition comes out. What if I think it is "unfun" to play against a particular faction like space marines you should ban them so I has more fun. I think players should take responsibility and ownership of the fact that only you yourself can make you happy and make sure you are having a good time and stop blaming your opponent or whatever else is unfunning your situation. Are some things more fun then others? Of course but it is your attitude that makes or breaks any given experience. Personally I don't like seeing IG across from my DE if they seize the initiative and there is little terrain but I still have a good time playing and trying to take that hill.
jy2 wrote: Yes, the seer council gets H&R from the Baron, which IMO is why the seer council is superior to the screamerstar.
Disallowing allies is a more extreme form of banning that may turn a lot of people off. If there's something TO's don't want to do is to turn off people to his tournament. Thus, going too extreme usually isn't advisable unless the TO knows that most of the participants wouldn't mind.
This may be a little off-topic, but you think banning allies (or SOME allies) is more extreme than altering a game mechanic? Philosophically, in my mind, it makes more sense to control meta-game elements, like army composition, before you start tinkering with game-play itself, work outside to inside.
And that was an actual question, not an internet-I'm-trying-not-to-sound-like-a-jerk-but-making-it-worse-thing. I really appreciate the way you comport yourself in these forums and you're a far more experienced player than I am, so I'd like to get your take on that.
I could easily see banning allies outside the IOM, and guard/chaos being embraced by a lot of players.
It's because of majority. A lot, lot more people run allies compared to those that run 2++ units. Why make them pay for it when the problem isn't really them. It would be akin to banning all flyers just because you thought the heldrake was too good.
No worries. I don't take things personally here. Your question is a legitimate concern/idea.
I do smile at the people saying dont ban 2+ re rollable armour or cover but do ban 2++. For example, what do Guard have that ignores cover? one vehicle iirc. That is hardly going to be 'fun' for them as that is the purpose of this proposed ban by Kingsley no?.
Also saying that games are unfun against screamerstar's and seercouncils, to be frank when I first started going tournies and playing against good players with good lists, I didnt have fun, I dont go to tournies to have fun I go to play against competitive lists. Maybe thats just me (and play fantasy for fun...).
I dont think it is fun playing with Marines against say the reaper star, or horde daemons against a tau gunline, or another of the other armies out there that encounter a hard a counter, will you think of banning them as well?.
Kingsley, do you think the lone buff commander in a unit of dark reapers is fun? a farsight/ovesa/riptide/buffmander is fun?, or a lone eldar farseer buffing Tau riptides or broadsides?. Units that kick out x amount of no cover, re roll to hit, high str and ap, in other words you put your models on the table then remove them off the table as you dont have any way of saving them.
Honestly I fail to see what part of that is fun it is purely a list building reason they are included.
You yourself have said they arent impossible to beat, no list is, just because some people find it hard and non fun to beat is that a reason to remove them?, I could say about some players, they are'nt fun to play and damn hard to beat, can they get banned as well?.
Also as I said in the other thread, if you starting banning one thing people will want other things banned, and I would whole heartedly agree with them.
Also saying that games are unfun against screamerstar's and seercouncils, to be frank when I first started going tournies and playing against good players with good lists, I didnt have fun, I dont go to tournies to have fun I go to play against competitive lists. Maybe thats just me (and play fantasy for fun...).
One of the problems is that the unit getting the re-rollable 2+ cover will most likely be getting a re-rollable 2+ armour as well. No army, with the exception of Tau, can bypass both and even Tau have problems against massed 2+ armour save units because the current meta is mainly AP 4/5 guns for them.
Although re-rollable 2++ invulns is bad, it actually isn't as bad as the 2+ cover/armour of the seer council because you can lock/tarpit the screamerstar in combat to neutralize it. That is something you can't do against the seer council.
The reason a lot of people include tau allies is for the riptide, the buffmander, and all the anti-flyer/cover. SoB, Marines, and Eldar can all do it solo as well. With most armies including/ having any of the above as allies, they have the tools to do such a thing.
so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.
this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.
you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.
Asking tournament organizers to ban certain things means that everyone is just asking for a better chance to win in an environment that will NEVER be balanced. Come on.
Plan to fight against competitive and painful armies. Personally, I don't care what someone brings in a tournament.. because I likely won't be attending.
Restricting rules or units in a game system that is notoriously unbalanced is always based on opinion, because what might hurt one player's army doesn't hurt another. Example: If I hate Heldrakes because they work well against me, does it give me cause to ask that they be banned? Nope. What about valkries?
What about chimeras? Yes, I am terrified of Chimeras because of their small arms output and the fact that they make my AP3 bolters and 4+ invuls useless. BAN THEM.
Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.
skkipper wrote: so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.
this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.
you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.
Here is the issue though, it still punishes regular daemons more than screamerstar. If every Daemon goes to having a 5+ armor save then it kill the entire army in a large way.
Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.
Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?
Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).
It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.
Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.
Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?
Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).
It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.
Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?
Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).
It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
Do you really want to? As a TO, would you feel that Tau and Elder need to be removed for balance or let the meta figure it out on its own?
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
You're just being obnoxious now.
There is a clear cut difference between the likes of the Seer Council/ScreamerStar and the likes of a 'generic' TauDar list.
The former, when set up, becomes literally untouchable. The fact that a 2000pt army can do little more than a couple of wounds (if even that) to a 600pt unit because of a combination of factors is ludicrous. Even the usual counter of "just ignore them and play the mission!" which is normally proposed is little more than fallacious, as these units are so fast they can literally be upon you turn one.
Kingsley, I don't think that there will be a way of "comping" (that's effectively what this is) the 40k meta without hurting other armies. I run a Farseer w/Bike and Mantle, and she's a great harassment tool but most definitely not overpowered. However, the same cannot be said for the likes of the Seer Council and the like.
If you ban 2+ saves of any kind from being re-rolled, it'll also effect those 2+ re-rollable saves which really aren't THAT much of an issue.
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
You're just being obnoxious now.
There is a clear cut difference between the likes of the Seer Council/ScreamerStar and the likes of a 'generic' TauDar list.
The former, when set up, becomes literally untouchable. The fact that a 2000pt army can do little more than a couple of wounds (if even that) to a 600pt unit because of a combination of factors is ludicrous. Even the usual counter of "just ignore them and play the mission!" which is normally proposed is little more than fallacious, as these units are so fast they can literally be upon you turn one.
Kingsley, I don't think that there will be a way of "comping" (that's effectively what this is) the 40k meta without hurting other armies. I run a Farseer w/Bike and Mantle, and she's a great harassment tool but most definitely not overpowered. However, the same cannot be said for the likes of the Seer Council and the like.
If you ban 2+ saves of any kind from being re-rolled, it'll also effect those 2+ re-rollable saves which really aren't THAT much of an issue.
Iranna.
Assuming you have played against them right?. The screamer star is more like 800-900pts in a single unit, that can be on you turn 2 but can only kill one unit a turn. Now add in fateweaver to that mix thats 1100pts. Fateweaver to be honest is pretty darn weak and drops easy enough being t5 4++ (RR 1's so effectively 3++). So the screamerstar player has the majority, by far, of points in one unit. Play the mission and not your opponent, its not hard at all to do. The seer council, average of say 8 on bikes with 2 farseers is 670pts and then some, then add in baron for needed hit and run so 775pts, again more then half the army in one unit. If it was cheap and OP then there I would agree its broken but with half or 3/4's of a army in one unit it deserves to be powerful, one thing I have found in the 6th ed dex's there is no cheap cheese at all.
I think shooting your 2k pt army at one unit which has that save is where you are failing, spread out and move, lose one unit a turn maybe yes, but then kill their troops and win.
Also, no screamercouncil or seercouncil has won a big tourny in the uk, I am not suprised to be frank.
skkipper wrote: so it is a three game event? prepublish say 5 missions that could be used. one of the missions has a rule like Warp flux: invulnerable saves count as normal armour saves.
this still allows people to have 2+ rr but ap2 weapons gimp them.
you don't have to use the mission but it is out there to scare people into picking differnet list.
Here is the issue though, it still punishes regular daemons more than screamerstar. If every Daemon goes to having a 5+ armor save then it kill the entire army in a large way.
I am not saying use the mission but have it as an option. people who play the 2++ lists are trying to game the system and will change to something else if they feel they lost the game.
Here is what I am saying though, if there is a threat of that mission (Lets call it Mission Tau and Eldar beat face on Daemons more than normal), I either won't attend, or won't run Daemons at all regardless of whether I run 2++ invul. Than the Seer Council runs in with its regular 2+ re-roll and 2+ cover re-roll and still rolls people.
So while you kind of hurt the 2+ re-roll army (wait I still have 2+ armor- reroll) you kill regular Daemons who only have a 5+ save. So if that mission does get played and I bring daemons I get screwed, so I don't play the army.
You are better off just saying hey we don't like daemons...play gunline.
Like I said before, it's always up to the tournament organizer to determine what he allows.. but for the record I don't think there should be any restrictions in tournaments.
Agreed, but at times TOs look at the meta and feel they have to make a decision; do I allow my tournament to include everything, even the things that people really, really hate and feel disgusted play against, or do I change or tinker with the rules and disgust and alienate those who feel the game should be as close to RAW/RAI as possible?
Some systems police themselves, such as Magic the Gathering (although to be fair they have much more time to test new mechanics and card interactions and they impose restrictions on certain formats because of it). Others require independent moderation (I believe Warhammer 40k falls into this niche as the company has little control over the tournaments that its gamers play).
It's really a choice and perspective matter. If you play in a group who plays nothing but Seer Councils, Taudar, Screamstars, ect. and are competitive to the extreme, you would not want people to change the rules because it handicaps your selection of weapons to bring to the table.
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
Do you really want to? As a TO, would you feel that Tau and Elder need to be removed for balance or let the meta figure it out on its own?
No, I'm being sarcastic, obviously I don't want them to be removed from the game.
In terms of balance though, the 2 books are standing on the top now, so according to you they should be removed for balance.
And letting the meta figure out on its own should include 2++ rerollable.
Once you start banning specific lists it become unfair for some codices.
People start asking why not ban Necron Flier Spam? Heldrakes? Farsight Bomb etc...
If players were playing within the rules I personally believe it is fair for them to bring whatever they want.
People hate playing against Eldar and Tau should they ban them as well?
You're just being obnoxious now.
There is a clear cut difference between the likes of the Seer Council/ScreamerStar and the likes of a 'generic' TauDar list.
The former, when set up, becomes literally untouchable. The fact that a 2000pt army can do little more than a couple of wounds (if even that) to a 600pt unit because of a combination of factors is ludicrous. Even the usual counter of "just ignore them and play the mission!" which is normally proposed is little more than fallacious, as these units are so fast they can literally be upon you turn one.
Kingsley, I don't think that there will be a way of "comping" (that's effectively what this is) the 40k meta without hurting other armies. I run a Farseer w/Bike and Mantle, and she's a great harassment tool but most definitely not overpowered. However, the same cannot be said for the likes of the Seer Council and the like.
If you ban 2+ saves of any kind from being re-rolled, it'll also effect those 2+ re-rollable saves which really aren't THAT much of an issue.
Iranna.
I know there's a clear cut difference between the two, but it's essentially the same thing.
Once you start banning specific lists, people will be asking why not ban this or this or this?
Both the seer council and screamerstar costs up to 600-1000 pts, that's a lot of points for a tournament.
Sure a 2++ is frustrating, but there are counters.
It also requires an amount of luck to get the right set up, and then some more luck to successfully cast the powers/grimmoire together.
Because of this I would say that a re-rollable 2++ save can be highly competitive, but not overpowered enough to warrant blocking it.
Do lists that are centred around getting 2++ saves more often than not come out ahead vs waveserpent spam lists? I would say not.
Arbitrarily blocking one competitive build but leaving others in the game to me seems like a pointless exercise.
You are running a tournament, and in the spirit of competition some people expect to be able to play their cheese lists to the max, I don't see a reason why this should be denied to them.
Banning a 2+ re-rollable save is unacceptable. It nerfs 2 armies in the game, both of which are not dominating the tournament scene, and both of which can
and do loose games. You have to be smart enough to build a list and play well enough to deal with them.
Once you go down this path, you have to start banning other things. And there are lots of other really broken things in this game.
And Reecius - what happened to "Team Zero Comp"? You yourself have posted articles about how the game should be played as written, with
no units banned. Now, you change your tune because of a couple of tournament builds?
It is a 40K tournament for crying out loud, not Barbie dolls.
Breng77 wrote: Because it causes other people not to show up?
Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?
I presume this was in response to my post. I'll simply say that the same thing can be said for Serpent spam and many other tactics which are considered cheesy.
There are many lists around that are not fun to play against or might dissuade players from attending. I'm sure the TauDar meta has had this effect on some people.
Pitting the most competitive lists against each other is what tournaments are about, and to limit some of the competitors but not others is out of order in my books.
Each organizer / group will have a different opinion on what should / should not be included in their event. What ever way they wish to go, it is entirely up to them.
For me personally, I do not think it is necessary to ban any of it. There have been so many "broken" combos in the past and events have survived. This type of mechanic is nothing new when compared to the other power curves created throughout the various editions. But then again - only the old guard would know this.
I am 100% aware of the irony of our team name and my current stance on these issues. It is funny.
But, Team Zero Comp was something that came about as we lived in an area where there were only comp heavy tournaments and 5th edition, pre-GK, was really balanced comparative to any other point in the game.
This is different.
Can you beat these armies? Yes.
Are they fluky? Yes. 1/8 games they don't get their combination of powers and they take a crap. 7/8 games they do, and the game is a joke.
I personally am all about finding a way to win, and learning how to deconstruct and beat the "unbeatable" armies as it gives me a lot of satisfaction. Not everyone thinks that way.
It is very, very easy for some people to simply say, "tell everyone to just deal with it and stop being pussies."
Yup, I know the feeling. I used to be that way myself.
But, it is a HUGE difference when you are the one with tens of thousands of dollars on the line running a big gaming convention. I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.
While a lot of tournament goers share the opinions of those expressed here, the simple truth of the matter is that the health and well being of a convention rests on the bottom 94% of the attendees coming. Straight up. The top 16 will be the top 16 regardless of format. The guys with the mental mastery of the game can go to any event in any format and win. The guys coming to have fun, can't because they do not have the time nor the inclination to invest the hours of study it takes to get to that point.
The reason these conversations are coming up is that for the first time ever in this game, their are lists that take skill out of the equation. That pisses off top players and it pisses off casual players. For the first time, everyone is pissed! haha, that is a problem.
So, we are talking about ideas that may help to mitigate this.
Do any of you really think that going from invincible status with a 2+ reroll to neigh-invincible status with a 2+/4+ is really going to kill any build? A 2+/4+ is what Draigowing was last edition and that was considered slowed OP then. We're talking about simply backing it up enough so that if another player must engage the deathstar unit, they actually have a chance of hurting it.
It's saying instead of 108 Bolter shots to cause a SINGLE WOUND, we're talking about the still stupid, 36 bolter shots.
Is that really that big of a deal?
While I agree that we need to play as close to the rules as possible, we are coming to a point in the game where you can have 6 books in a single list, or more.
Super Heavies on the table.
It's all legal now. If we don't allow any of it, we are "banning" things. There is no difference in saying, we are going to ban super heavies in our tournament because we think it won't be fun, than saying, we're going to ban a 2+ reroll (or nerf it, to be more accurate) because we think it will be more fun for more people.
And, as a player, would you choose to not go to an event because of this nerf to simply allow people to actually fight back against certain units that are becoming increasingly prevalent? Even if attacking said units is a bad idea in the first place? All it does is take away that sense of hopelessness that turns players away form coming back to a tournament. The units still function in the exact same way they did before, but with a slight, and IMO reasonable reduction to make everything more fun for everyone.
Again, not saying that this WILL happen, but that we should consider it.
That is what we are talking about, not banning entire armies which, come on, even on the internet that is being excessively hyperbolic. We're talking about extremely targeted nerfs, that modify the game in as small a way as possible to attempt to level the playing field so that more armies are viable, and that more people can enjoy the game they are playing.
Reecius wrote: @Aftermath
I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.
Hey Reece - not taking anything away from you. However, some of us have already been down that road a lot and I mean a lot longer than you / Team Zero Comp and we have a different opinion. The "impossibly" hard to kill / play against builds have existed throughout all editions. With the increase in volumes of fire come increases in volumes of saves or models to balance it out.
I'm also going to add - in the early to mid 2000s, the UKGT allowed everything when the US tournament scene was banning various things. Yet, the UKGT had one of the highest total number of participants in the world at the time.
Create the type of event you want to see. Every event can be and most likely is different. People will still attend as long as the event is run very well, provides an economical means for attendance and is run in a pleasing environment.
It's really more about if any issues become so vastly agreed upon that the outliers are few and far between, and the vast majority doesn't want something. That hasn't happened yet. Frankly I don't have a strong one on 2+ re-rolls (B/c the two major offensive units are psy power based) until we see what they do with Shadows and the popularity/viability of Nids.
Formations are a little stupid in terms of their impact on both the fluffy and competitive fronts.
But /waiting game until the Advent Calendar completes and Tyranids release.
In the interim, I'VE DONE LOTS OF TOURNIES AND ORGANIZED 'EM TOO AND I THINK YA'LL ARE WRONG ALSO! Love you both, Greg and Reece.
I totally understand some of you guys have been around the hobby longer than me, no doubt. Not trying to put anyone down, just trying to illustrate that it is a different thing to have the perspective of how things affect an individual as a tournament gamer vs. how things impact a group of attendees as a group.
And, yes, volume of fire helps but it takes insane amount of fire to do a single wound through a 2+ reroll.
Literally, multiply the amount of wounds in a unit by 108 do determine what it takes to fight them directly with bolters (and we know that is typically not the way to do it but hey). There aren't enough turns in the game to hurt one of these units in a lot of cases, shooting your entire army at them
Again, you and I know that isn't the correct tactic to use, but most don't.
My main point is do you want to play with and against these lists? Or, would you consider it fair to tone them down a bit (a good player still isn't going to engage them directly in most cases) but it allows the chance to actually impact them if needs be.
I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.
It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.
In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.
Haha, we're never right! Just varying degrees of wrong =P
I was joking with the guys at the shop that whatever comes next is going to piss people off, no matter what we do, the trick is trying to piss the least amount of people off as possible! haha
jy2 wrote: I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.
It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.
In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.
This. It's behind 90% of what a good TO does, contrary to popular opinion that most TOs just rule the way they personally think is best.
Why not just make it a poll? I personally wouldn't attend an event if it limited what I could and couldn't bring for my army. I play DE and am fine playing against whatever my opponent brings weather I win, lose or draw.
You said it. It is a business, after all and while the core goal is fun, fair competition, with no pennies in the coffers, no tournament to go to in the first place.
Changing a core rule of the game will do nothing to help "customers" or tournament attendees. There will always be power lists at these events. Remember Draigo Wing last edition? I personally watched an Ork player used to rolling people off the table storm out of an event after he found out throwing 120 boyz at it won't work.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Leave the game alone; it runs fine as is.
And, Reecius, you are being paranoid. You are not going to see half the players at your event running Seer Council or Screamer Star. Certainly, not like what we saw at Adepticon with all the Grey Knights.
There will be a few of them, but I would speculate you are going to be looking at 50% of your attendees running some version of Tau\Eldar. With a few IG Saber\Thudd spam lists.
Breng77 wrote: Because it causes other people not to show up?
Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?
I presume this was in response to my post. I'll simply say that the same thing can be said for Serpent spam and many other tactics which are considered cheesy.
There are many lists around that are not fun to play against or might dissuade players from attending. I'm sure the TauDar meta has had this effect on some people.
Pitting the most competitive lists against each other is what tournaments are about, and to limit some of the competitors but not others is out of order in my books.
The last line is entirely your opinion....for many people that is not what tournaments are all about. I'm with you that 2+ re-roll lists are not the only unfun thing to play against that might deter attendees.
I just think it is short sighted and naive to think that there isn't some issue with the game right now that was not present before.
You think 2+ re-roll is bad, how about 21 Broadsides in an army....or just broadsides in every army?
I'm with Mike in waiting through the end of these releases, but there is no rule that the "competitive" side of thing cannot change things to make a more competitive/interesting game.
Tournaments already do this with missions, changes to how warlord traits are chose, leaving out mysterious stuff, 1999+1 events (this already was many people saying...lets not just bring the most competitive lists, because they are crazy broken/stupid), time limits on games, some have Comp in some method.
Will some people always bring the strongest available list? Yeah they will....toning down what that strongest available list is makes the games those players play against players not bringing the stongest list a bit more enjoyable.
A couple of fun events I have attended in the past:
Highlander - No repeat units outside troops. You have to choose an option from each FOC Slot, before you can repeat a unit. This one was cool, because people took units they normally never would.
Power Armour - Just marines on marines. I honestly think this is the best way to play marines. They are most balanced against each other.
I have to admit that as a Daemon player, who stuck with the army ever since the initial codex dropped just before 5th hit the shelves, a part of me finds this debate highly insulting and hypocritical.
Last edition we saw the game shift towards a min/maxed mech fest. Daemons sucked overall at dealing with mobile vehicles. (Parking lots that never moved were lunch!) Still, we took it on the chin and soldiered on. Then we saw Durp Knights literally screw our entire codex over and plant its collective foot up our backsides, including an easily spammed ability we couldn't stop that could outright prevent us from even putting a single fething model on the table!!! (granted, most tourney lists only ever saw 20 or so Dick Quake capable models at most, but even 10 used properly was enough to auto-screw Daemons.)
And did we get any kind of sympathy? Hell no. We just got told, "sucks to be you - deal with it 'cause them's the rulez!lol"
Yet now Daemons finally get a really, really good ability, but all of a sudden it's entirely unfair/broken because just blindly throwing your entire army at it like a sledgehammer doesn't work.
A part of me can only help but think, 'pot, meet kettle'. (especially when it's GK players bitching about our pts denial set-up, because it's not like they EVER gamed Draigowing & wound allocation shenanigans to brutal effect... )
Okay, ranting done...
I do entirely agree that a re-rollable 2++ IS really stupid and should definitely NOT be available across an entire unit. It isn't much fun to see a whole unit that's quite literally untouchable, and trust me when I say that as a Daemon player I know better than most 40k players how stupid it is! (Thank-you so much High Elves and your stupidly OP Everb**** + Banner of the Wardcrutch Dragon...)
However, I don't think it should be outright banned - just limit it to only a single model. (so only a Greater or Prince or solo Herald/Chariot etc... can get it) Or else limit the re-roll to a 4+ as suggested, thus allowing it to still be effective across an entire unit.
Banning it outright though is unfair to Daemon players, especially since we've had to take everyone else's silly crap, (and GK's especially so), right up the bum for so long.
jy2 wrote: I can see Reece's point. As a TO, you can't be too extreme. You have to cater to the masses as that is your core customer base, not just the hardcore, competitive players. The hardcore gamers will still go to a tournament no matter the format. However, if nothing is done to curb a "perceived" incongruity (and an extreme one at that) in the game, then you risk losing a lot of your customers, maybe not at the current tournament but most likely on the next one especially if they leave with a sour taste in their mouth after having to deal with the invincible unit.
It's like an ultra-liberal politician who makes it into office. After he does so, he needs to take a step back from his ultra-liberal views for a slightly more toned and conservative perspective, at least if he wants to continue to stay in office and get re-elected.
In short, as a gamer, yeah do whatever you want and go to whatever tournament you want. However, as a TO, you better make damn sure you listen to the majority of the players going to your tournaments and who are your customers.
Experiment 626 wrote: Okay, ranting done...
I do entirely agree that a re-rollable 2++ IS really stupid and should definitely NOT be available across an entire unit. It isn't much fun to see a whole unit that's quite literally untouchable, and trust me when I say that as a Daemon player I know better than most 40k players how stupid it is! (Thank-you so much High Elves and your stupidly OP Everb**** + Banner of the Wardcrutch Dragon...)
However, I don't think it should be outright banned - just limit it to only a single model. (so only a Greater or Prince or solo Herald/Chariot etc... can get it) Or else limit the re-roll to a 4+ as suggested, thus allowing it to still be effective across an entire unit.
Banning it outright though is unfair to Daemon players, especially since we've had to take everyone else's silly crap, (and GK's especially so), right up the bum for so long.
Lol, nice rant prior to this and agree about not considering banning it entirely- just either restricting it or reducing it.
That's only if, as MVBrandt says, GW don't surprise everyone and fix this with the Tyranids codex, as they very well might.
Of course, then there will still be Formations to deal with... but we have to see how far that craziness goes first. GW are apparently just getting warmed up
A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.
BrotherOfBone wrote: A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Bluetau wrote: It would render GK Paladins with the Apothecary fairly worthless. Granted you dont have to take the Apothecary and it is an expensive upgrade.
But as a TO. It's your call.
And why would it render paladins+apothecary useless?
Yeah, you see nothing wrong with it from a 30,000 feet above perspective as, over a longer span of time, they tend to crap out. Sure, that is very true.
But tell that to the 7 guys that played against them where the list DIDN't crap out and their tournament experience sucked as a result. That's the point we're driving at.
@Aftermath
For sure, 100% I am being paranoid! hahaha, I accept that, but again, we have a lot at stake (money, the health of our business, etc.) and I think it is at least understandable why I would be paranoid about this, you know?
@Greg
You are right dude, there is room for lots of different events.
I didn't mean to sound arrogant saying "it's different when you run events than play in them" I was just trying to say that for MOST gamers that have not run events on a relatively big stage, it is a different experience. I know because I was on that side of the fence at one point.
I value your guys input, the vets, the casual gamers, the serious tournament gamers, other TOs, and that is why I ask for everyone's input. With all these digital releases the other TOs have all been reaching out to one another trying to figure out what to make of it all. Me being me, I am just more vocal about it. Don't take any of this as a slight, it wasn't meant that way, I know some of you guys have been in this game longer than me, for sure. I was talking to a more general audience, so to speak.
@RiTides
Yeah, I agree it would be awesome to wait for Nids too, that would totally be my preference, but with the LVO, we don't have that luxury because of timing. That's one of the reasons why I am all over the dang place asking for feedback =)
Yeah, I agree it would be awesome to wait for Nids too, that would totally be my preference, but with the LVO, we don't have that luxury because of timing. That's one of the reasons why I am all over the dang place asking for feedback =)
Ah, that makes sense, I totally didn't make that connection! Was thinking it'd still have an effect for the LVO...
Will the new Nids 'dex be legal for the event, since it'll likely be right on the line of 30 days out? I guess it's still too early for the meta to shift in response, though.
BrotherOfBone wrote: A bit off-topic here, but for every codex they release that's overpowered they solve it with the next codex which obliterates the super meta armies everyone had built and itself becomes overpowered.. I'm waiting for the last 40k army to be released But yeah, it's not about restricting the game so that certain people lose, that's just unfair for certain players IMO, and these deathstar lists only work, as someone before me said, 1/8 times.. So for 1 game they're going to own and the other 7 they'll be mincemeat. I don't see anything wrong with it.
Pretty sure you've got that backwards...
I believe I do xD But my point still stands, by restricting the game all you're going to do is shield them from what real 40k is like, and when they get out of this rather sheltered tournament they're going to say "oh gak, I'm done, why bother" Just a little rhetoric here, my first game was in 5th Edition, I played against my friend's Chaos Space Marines with my Ultramarines out the box army. I was tabled in turn 2.. My second game was against Tau Fish of Fury, I was tabled again in turn 2. Hell, I still get tabled in turn 2 but it's fun!
Not sure why you think Nids will fix it. I don't see it.
I think Shadows will go away, or get nerfed in the way the Eldar runes did.
You are going to have to deal with it in a competitive setting. I believe it is the way the game is intended to work. It is too obvious in the daemon codex; and is asinine to believe these professional game designers did not understand the very specific grimoire, tzeentch, and divination rules they wrote.
And besides that, it is all fair as has been stated above.
It comes down to is the event better without 2+ re-rollable saves.
Honestly for the OP if your not running a multi day national tournament doing something about the 2+ re-rollable is extremely viable as local metas wont normally have tools to deal with those armies even at the final stages of the events.
For a national event I am certainly not conviced that banning/nerfing a 2+ rerollable does anything to make the event better and from a T.O.s perspective I highly doubt it would give you higher attendance if that is what your shooting for. Looking at the polling not running Forgeworld would give you a better attendance than nerfing 2+, I doubt there are people out there saying to themselves hey if only the event did something about 2+ rerollable I would want to come.
Nerfing/Banning might shift a few people away, but there are plenty of other very spammy, unfun to play against builds, and there are multitudes of ways for a good tournament players to deal with all of the current lists if he knows what is what about them and how take advantage of thier weaknesses. There have always been builds that people want to play because they make for an easier win, changing which ones they are does not make a better tournament, it just makes a different one, 2++ rerollable is a bad mechanic but currently in a tournamanet format does not gaurantee an automatic win, it just makes it easier. Lists that auto lose to 2+ rerollable will still lose 90% of the time to tau/dar, O'vesa, Tripdrake, Tervigon spam, Wave sperpent spam, Wraithwing, and other tournament lists, and they wont have a more fun time losing to them as the games wont necessarily be closer.
On a side note.
The most abusive armies in LVO wont be any of the big three 2+ low troop armies, if competent people bring forgeworld IG/SW/Inquisition they have the ability to turn one decimate almost any army, servo skulls, presience , Coteaz giving a 2nd sieze and outflank/deepstrike bubble protection are brutally effective at keeping opponents away from an army that can reign death. The one saving grace is out of 256 you might have 2-3 optimized lists so its not going to ever be 40-50.
I find it a little hypocritical to hear TO’s claim that removing or adjusting 2++ is in fact a way of making Tournaments better for the average 90% of Tournament players. In fact targeting the 2++ is a much greater benefit to the top guys in any Tournament.
2++ lists manned by quality players rise very quicky to the top of the heap in any given Tournament. Within a couple of rounds these guys are already grouped together while the remaining majority are fighting it out amongst themselves.
These are the type of gamers I talk to a lot and are the ones we as TO’s should be catering to in a lot of ways. In my interactions with the average player 2++ has never been a major issue with them. Combos are the biggest gripe as to what makes for a mostly unfun experience for the average player.
In 5th edition we had Spam and that was one of the biggest complaints of the game. Now in 6th we have the ability to add spam with allies and compound the problem with combos.
I personally don’t advocate comp or bans but even after listening to recent podcasts and watching these threads I still keep coming to the conclusion that the BBro combos are our biggest problem.
I know this wont fix everything, yea screamerstar still exists and I do realize that lots of non broken combos get a nerf. However I feel if TOs try to target 1 or 2 armies we find ourselves in a very dangerous situation with our gamers.
Taking from Brad (hulk) screamers still exist.. but doesn’t removing the baron buffs from seerstar more or less put them at a similar level ? still very good but not so far ahead of all other armies that even the best builds and players struggle to compete .
Adjust 2++ and we still have Tau in every army, Flyer spam, FMC spam, Prescience spam, swiss army knife Commanders , 2+ invis saves on units, drakes, Codexes allying with themselves. The list goes on !
I believe that any change to the game (if done) would have to come from the universal BRB rules set. 1999+1, bans on Myst obj/terrain, Fort of Redem, player placed terrain, ect. have become universally accepted because when in play they effect every player and not just a codex or 2.
zedsdead wrote: I find it a little hypocritical to hear TO’s claim that removing or adjusting 2++ is in fact a way of making Tournaments better for the average 90% of Tournament players. In fact targeting the 2++ is a much greater benefit to the top guys in any Tournament.
The top guys are fine with or without any rules change that may be made. The thing that makes them top guys is that they understand the game system better than other people. This is why you see the same "top guys" winning events with and without comp-- if you're good enough to win with the normal selection of units, you're probably good enough to win with whatever selection comp imposes as well. This change is meant to eliminate what is IMO the least fun game experience in the game at present for those who don't know how to deal with it.
I wouldn't say I'm one of the top guys, but I'm definitely at least somewhat competitive. I can tell you that I know many methods of dealing with rerolling 2+ saves, and I will happily play against them with a normal army. But for a great many people-- even at a tournament-- this simply isn't true, and their experience might be ruined by playing against these armies. The key difference that makes rerolling 2+ saves worse than, say, a Tau/Eldar gunline, is that a rerolling 2+ save army is basically immune to the core game elements, while a Tau/Eldar gunline is not.
There's a big difference between an army that happens to shoot more efficiently than yours and an army that you can't meaningfully damage at all with your shooting, and that's what this is intended to address.
What makes the 2+ rerollable save broken is simply a matter of damage reduction applied to 40k.
When your playing a MMO like WoW, you can sport a 97% damage mitigation. That's because you have large pools of health and the incoming damage is huge. The game was designed and scaled with this in mind.
40k was designed with 1d6 in mind for most things. This means the best 'normal' save you can get provides only a 83.33% damage mitigation. This is great when your taking damage on models with 1-6 wounds (health, hit points, whatever) and the incoming damage is 1-30 points.
The problem is that with a 97% damage mitigation the target will last over five time as long as the target with the 83.33% damage mitigation. Think of how long it takes to shoot 10 terminators with bolters off the board. Now image 55 terminators, and that's the 2+ rerollable save.
These saves have always been in the game. Popping a wolf banner with a terminator wolf guard in a GH squad. Getting the right chaos boon on your lord. When they occurred they were annoying but not game-breaking.
The difference is now they can be (fairly) reliably generated though eldar/damon builds. These builds can be addressed, but by doing so you limit your capability to handle the Eldar/Tau builds -- and severely limit your chances of winning a GT.
Excuse me but are you saying in order to counter the top 2 builds you have to give up on your ability to counter other builds?
And wouldnt those said eldar/tau builds get crushed against the top 2 builds?
/sarcasm
i agree with 2++ rerolling is nigh impossible to counter. Eldar seercouncilthough still strong is somewhat killable in combination of ignore cover ap2 (available for tau even without buff commander) or with plain old beatstick. Screamerstar on the other hand requires specific armament (mass tfc or gk stomravens) in order to just slow down let alone destroy the screamerstar.
Maybe the dreaded d-weapons will be our saviour to these scourges.
Breng77 wrote: Because it causes other people not to show up?
Or to not enjoy the game when they do show up?
I presume this was in response to my post. I'll simply say that the same thing can be said for Serpent spam and many other tactics which are considered cheesy.
There are many lists around that are not fun to play against or might dissuade players from attending. I'm sure the TauDar meta has had this effect on some people.
Pitting the most competitive lists against each other is what tournaments are about, and to limit some of the competitors but not others is out of order in my books.
The last line is entirely your opinion....for many people that is not what tournaments are all about. I'm with you that 2+ re-roll lists are not the only unfun thing to play against that might deter attendees.
I just think it is short sighted and naive to think that there isn't some issue with the game right now that was not present before.
You think 2+ re-roll is bad, how about 21 Broadsides in an army....or just broadsides in every army?
I'm with Mike in waiting through the end of these releases, but there is no rule that the "competitive" side of thing cannot change things to make a more competitive/interesting game.
Tournaments already do this with missions, changes to how warlord traits are chose, leaving out mysterious stuff, 1999+1 events (this already was many people saying...lets not just bring the most competitive lists, because they are crazy broken/stupid), time limits on games, some have Comp in some method.
Will some people always bring the strongest available list? Yeah they will....toning down what that strongest available list is makes the games those players play against players not bringing the stongest list a bit more enjoyable.
No. I'm still sticking with the idea that tournaments are competitive. That is the definition of a tournament after all. People play the game for many reasons, but at the end of the day tournaments are there to be won, and the best way to win is to pick the most competitive list they can.
Now, if 2++ saves were causing an imbalance in the game, if lists that focused around them won the vast majority of the games they were played in, then sure I would support a change. However the facts simply do not support this. As it stands 2++ save builds are competitive, but not unbeatable. They provide some strong tactics to those armies that can attain it, and to remove it would simply remove a selection of viable builds for those armies.
Nowhere have I said that warhammer in its current state cannot be improved, so I don't feel that I am 'short sighted' or 'naive' in any way. Sure there are plenty of in-game imbalances, however crowbaring rules into a tournament is not the correct way to address it.
Doing so may create more imbalances than it solves, and will certainly annoy players who wish to use those strategies.
This of course changes if something is so far out of balance that it makes the game unplayable (think old fantasy Daemons, they had to release a new edition to solve that problem), but at the moment, 2++ saves are clearly not such a problem.
The definition of tournament is a competition where all attendees compete for an overall prize. That in no way indicates that there are no rules in place to dictate how this is done.
I'm not suggesting you need agree with what changes people want to make. But to say the equivalent of: "Everyone at a tournament is there to win and should bring the most powerful thing they can think of...otherwise it is their fault when they don't have fun...afterall this is about winning not about fun."
Is false and always has been about 40k tournaments....and is the attitude that leads people to dropping when they can "no longer win" If 40k tournaments were all about winning they might as well have been single elimination, why bother playing games when you don't impact the final result after all?
You admit 40k could be improved but doing it at tournaments is not how to do it so how then should it be done?
Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.
Here is a better option.... limit the amount of psyker levels an army can bring? seems to fix it... keep the 2+ rerollable but you can't bring more than 10 levels of psykers to the game... tones down big bug nid psykers, (so we can acutally finish a game..), screamer star, and jet seer....
Breng77 wrote: Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.
Sure. But there are more things besides 2++ saves that potentially unbalance the game. As a TO, if you ban only one"overpowered" option, but not the others, then you risk unbalancing the game against one codex. You may think 2++ saves are powerful, but then again so are mass tau missile spam lists that shoots things out of line of sight, or wave serpents with a 4+ cover save that ignore penetrating hits. Should I even mention things like necron air or SM bike lists?
Will you ban all of these things because they are efficient? Where will it end?
By banning only a select few units in one codex you risk alienating all the attendees using that particular army and also potentially hinder their capability to compete. This will harm your tournament.
Breng77 wrote: Essentially as a TO what it comes down to for me is this....if the game is coming to a point where the competitive side of it is not fun for lots of people I feel it needs to get changed...regardless of if the things we are changing are unbeatable/make the game unplayable. Otherwise attendees stop coming and events die.
I'm not saying 100% we are there right now....but we are close.
Sure. But there are more things besides 2++ saves that potentially unbalance the game. As a TO, if you ban only one"overpowered" option, but not the others, then you risk unbalancing the game against one codex. You may think 2++ saves are powerful, but then again so are mass tau missile spam lists that shoots things out of line of sight, or wave serpents with a 4+ cover save that ignore penetrating hits. Should I even mention things like necron air or SM bike lists?
Will you ban all of these things because they are efficient? Where will it end?
By banning only a select few units in one codex you risk alienating all the attendees using that particular army and also potentially hinder their capability to compete. This will harm your tournament.
Hey I never claimed that 2+ re-roll was the only thing that needed to be changed...in fact in previous threads Somewhere I posted a list of "rules changes" I would make to make the game more fun for all involved. TO the best of my recall they were
1.) Grimoir only effects the "Daemon" invul save.
2.) Change Fortune to Unit Ignores failed saves on a roll of 4+.
3.) Redact the 360 degree Heldrake FAQ.
4.) Change Markerlights back to -1 cover save per light spent.
5.) Change Serpent shields - any number of possible ways (Change range, make it one use only, change ignores cover to ignores jink, diminishing returns based on usage (i.e. you get less shots, and less durability each time you fire it or something)
6.) Fix buff commander: allow maybe only 2 signature systems and require them to take up his support slots.
7.) Fix artilery rules allowing all crew to benefit from T7.
I'm sure people could think of other possibilities...That said many thought that it was fixing too many things, but IMO it fixes to some extent the most common complaints I hear in the game.
I also suggested in the proposed rules a change to the FOC overall that prevents a lot of crazy builds but that is a much larger change to the core game rules.
Is there an accepted notation for all this "+" nonsense getting typed these days
I hadn't seen "+++" before... is that common, and if so, is this a correct key?
#+ = Normal save
#++ = Normal save that is rerollable
#+++ = Invulnerable save
??? = Invulnerable save that is rerollable
Or is "+++" actually uncommon, and people are using "#++" whether something is a normal or invulnerable save, just to denote that it is rerollable?
I'm having trouble distinguishing when something is an invulnerable save and when it isn't from the nomenclature people are using. If there's a standard, please link me to it . I can't be the only one with this question so maybe it would help others, too... thanks
My personal preference would be for #+ to denote a normal save, #++ to denote an invulnerable save, and simply typing "rerollable" or some other symbol to denote rerolls. "+++" feels like crazy town
Maybe this is how people are already using it, just wondering if there is a standard!
Hey I never claimed that 2+ re-roll was the only thing that needed to be changed...in fact in previous threads Somewhere I posted a list of "rules changes" I would make to make the game more fun for all involved. TO the best of my recall they were
1.) Grimoir only effects the "Daemon" invul save.
2.) Change Fortune to Unit Ignores failed saves on a roll of 4+.
3.) Redact the 360 degree Heldrake FAQ.
4.) Change Markerlights back to -1 cover save per light spent.
5.) Change Serpent shields - any number of possible ways (Change range, make it one use only, change ignores cover to ignores jink, diminishing returns based on usage (i.e. you get less shots, and less durability each time you fire it or something)
6.) Fix buff commander: allow maybe only 2 signature systems and require them to take up his support slots.
7.) Fix artilery rules allowing all crew to benefit from T7.
I'm sure people could think of other possibilities...That said many thought that it was fixing too many things, but IMO it fixes to some extent the most common complaints I hear in the game.
I also suggested in the proposed rules a change to the FOC overall that prevents a lot of crazy builds but that is a much larger change to the core game rules.
As an entry in a FAQ or new edition rule book, these might be ok. However if running a tournament I would never attempt to alter so many rules which effect the meta armies. Doing so would push away more people than it would attract.
For a safe bet at making a successful tournament, I would stick to changing/clarifying rules which are existing points of contention, rather than creating new ones by altering Codices.
It all comes down to this:
Are 2++ re-rollable saves dominating tournaments to such an extent that they need removing?
Would removing the 2++ save solve more arguments than it causes?
Would removing the 2++ encourage more players to attend the event?
To all 3 of these questions I believe the answer is no. Regardless of your opinion on the state of balance of 40k, and unless something is truly broken, the TO should only be there to clarify rules and set the points level of play, not to create a different arbitrary rule sets that change the army lists of the participants.
and the point of contention right now is that they Meta Armies might be driving people away from the game. You are right that as a single (smaller GT) TO I would never do all those things because the cost is to large for any one event.
What would need to happen is for a majority of TOs (and players) to agree on a tournament rule set/format. Covering any rules changes and have it be consistent. If all/many tournaments are run with said rules the chance of success is higher.
Now I'm not saying this will happen. However, the problem right now is not points of contention, TOs already clear these up...it is that things we all agree work, that are no fun to play with, but win games.
When as a TO you see lots of people not enjoying the game, thinking of solutions is fairly natural...now whether you use them is something else.
I also find it a sad statement, that slight nerfs to top armies will push players away when many admit that these things are "broken" or "too powerful".
I personally play screamer star and would prefer the change I listed above because it is no fun to play and just leads to games where people complain all the time....
Breng77 wrote: and the point of contention right now is that they Meta Armies might be driving people away from the game. You are right that as a single (smaller GT) TO I would never do all those things because the cost is to large for any one event.
What would need to happen is for a majority of TOs (and players) to agree on a tournament rule set/format. Covering any rules changes and have it be consistent. If all/many tournaments are run with said rules the chance of success is higher.
Now I'm not saying this will happen. However, the problem right now is not points of contention, TOs already clear these up...it is that things we all agree work, that are no fun to play with, but win games.
When as a TO you see lots of people not enjoying the game, thinking of solutions is fairly natural...now whether you use them is something else.
I also find it a sad statement, that slight nerfs to top armies will push players away when many admit that these things are "broken" or "too powerful".
I personally play screamer star and would prefer the change I listed above because it is no fun to play and just leads to games where people complain all the time....
Yeah, I agree with this.
A tournament faq released quarterly, decided upon by the hosts of all the major tournaments in an area, might work towards setting a more balanced competitive standard.
Is there an accepted notation for all this "+" nonsense getting typed these days
I hadn't seen "+++" before... is that common, and if so, is this a correct key?
#+ = Normal save
#++ = Normal save that is rerollable
#+++ = Invulnerable save
??? = Invulnerable save that is rerollable
Or is "+++" actually uncommon, and people are using "#++" whether something is a normal or invulnerable save, just to denote that it is rerollable?
I'm having trouble distinguishing when something is an invulnerable save and when it isn't from the nomenclature people are using. If there's a standard, please link me to it . I can't be the only one with this question so maybe it would help others, too... thanks
My personal preference would be for #+ to denote a normal save, #++ to denote an invulnerable save, and simply typing "rerollable" or some other symbol to denote rerolls. "+++" feels like crazy town
Maybe this is how people are already using it, just wondering if there is a standard!
#+ = armour
#++ = invul
#+++ = FnP
The "+" just signifies tiers of ignoring wounds. That's why we say "2++ rerollable" etc when we are talking about this.
One the post above, there are indy tourny FAQs, one for west coast and one for east coast, just like how the formats are for BAO west and NOVA east.
Rather than banning anything that can be taken normally according to the rules, add a unique scenario objective to one of your tournament missions. For example:
Warp Flux : This battle takes place extremely close to a warp rift, bending the laws of space and time. No dice may be rerolled during this game, for any reason.
Just let everyone who is interested in the tournament know that this rule will be in place for one or more of the missions, and then let them decide if it is worth bring a 2++ reroll unit. It also affects master-crafted, twin-linked, etc. and would provide for a quite interesting game.
I ran a tournament where I wanted to ban flyers, this is when sixth edition first came out and not every codex had flyers or a good counter to them. Needless to say, it did not go over well with the community. People want to be able to take their list and their models without any banning. So, I created additional rules to the tournament where every player got a free Icarus lascannon that was an indestructible objective, rather than banning flyers. It worked great. In one game, the Necron player had so many flyers and no ground units, that his opponent actually made it to his enemy's Icarus objective and started shooting down croissants with both gun emplacements, as well as his own Aegis quadgun!
avedominusnox wrote: My opinion is that we play the game as it is. If anyone started to ban what he personally disliked... Dunno it feels so wrong.
The game has rules and rules are not to be broken. Best idea is to make people play casual games instead of fully competitive lists.
You can't force people to follow your changes. That is why we buy rulebooks.
This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).
...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.
This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).
...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.
Eric
I can only assume your strategy is to scare away every TO in your area from hosting tournaments, thereby making you undefeated in tournaments in your area.
Breng77 wrote: The problem with something like that is that it nerfs tons of other units which don't really need nerfing. For example, Chaplains.
But, it at least allows selection of any unit in the rules. I can't think of many people that rely on a Chaplain in order for their army to work, but a lot of armies need that 2++ reroll.
I would not say a lot of armies need a 2+ re-roll to work (I can think of 2), it would have a much greater effect on things like prefered enemy, twin linked weapons, divination spells etc, than 2+ re-rolls. Fixing the 2+ re-roll still allows those people to take those armies without the super buff, where as yours nerfs them and lots of other things that are not needed.
This right here. Exactly.
IMO, it's absurd to put rulings on games YOU won't even be playing that fly in the face of the BRB and codices.
If I was in your tournament and you had this rule, I would NOT play in it and I would find you and tell you precisely why (because of this decision).
...and I don't even have/play any armies with rerollable 2+ saves.
Eric
I can only assume your strategy is to scare away every TO in your area from hosting tournaments, thereby making you undefeated in tournaments in your area.
Am I so transparent? LOL
Nah. In truth, I just don't like it when people use their position of power to force their own bias onto people.
I am 100% aware of the irony of our team name and my current stance on these issues. It is funny.
But, Team Zero Comp was something that came about as we lived in an area where there were only comp heavy tournaments and 5th edition, pre-GK, was really balanced comparative to any other point in the game.
This is different.
Can you beat these armies? Yes.
Are they fluky? Yes. 1/8 games they don't get their combination of powers and they take a crap. 7/8 games they do, and the game is a joke.
I personally am all about finding a way to win, and learning how to deconstruct and beat the "unbeatable" armies as it gives me a lot of satisfaction. Not everyone thinks that way.
It is very, very easy for some people to simply say, "tell everyone to just deal with it and stop being pussies."
Yup, I know the feeling. I used to be that way myself.
But, it is a HUGE difference when you are the one with tens of thousands of dollars on the line running a big gaming convention. I assure you, all of you would change your tune if you had walked the road Team Zero Com has walked on the journey from hardcore tournament players to tournament organizers. It really does change your perspective.
While a lot of tournament goers share the opinions of those expressed here, the simple truth of the matter is that the health and well being of a convention rests on the bottom 94% of the attendees coming. Straight up. The top 16 will be the top 16 regardless of format. The guys with the mental mastery of the game can go to any event in any format and win. The guys coming to have fun, can't because they do not have the time nor the inclination to invest the hours of study it takes to get to that point.
The reason these conversations are coming up is that for the first time ever in this game, their are lists that take skill out of the equation. That pisses off top players and it pisses off casual players. For the first time, everyone is pissed! haha, that is a problem.
So, we are talking about ideas that may help to mitigate this.
Do any of you really think that going from invincible status with a 2+ reroll to neigh-invincible status with a 2+/4+ is really going to kill any build? A 2+/4+ is what Draigowing was last edition and that was considered slowed OP then. We're talking about simply backing it up enough so that if another player must engage the deathstar unit, they actually have a chance of hurting it.
It's saying instead of 108 Bolter shots to cause a SINGLE WOUND, we're talking about the still stupid, 36 bolter shots.
Is that really that big of a deal?
While I agree that we need to play as close to the rules as possible, we are coming to a point in the game where you can have 6 books in a single list, or more.
Super Heavies on the table.
It's all legal now. If we don't allow any of it, we are "banning" things. There is no difference in saying, we are going to ban super heavies in our tournament because we think it won't be fun, than saying, we're going to ban a 2+ reroll (or nerf it, to be more accurate) because we think it will be more fun for more people.
And, as a player, would you choose to not go to an event because of this nerf to simply allow people to actually fight back against certain units that are becoming increasingly prevalent? Even if attacking said units is a bad idea in the first place? All it does is take away that sense of hopelessness that turns players away form coming back to a tournament. The units still function in the exact same way they did before, but with a slight, and IMO reasonable reduction to make everything more fun for everyone.
Again, not saying that this WILL happen, but that we should consider it.
That is what we are talking about, not banning entire armies which, come on, even on the internet that is being excessively hyperbolic. We're talking about extremely targeted nerfs, that modify the game in as small a way as possible to attempt to level the playing field so that more armies are viable, and that more people can enjoy the game they are playing.
That is the only truth, and I m 100% with you.
I can't believe people waited for the escaltation to release so they can start speaking of 2++ and they forget necrons and other OP things. But after all haters will eventually do what they live for.
I am not terribly familiar (okay at all familiar) with the current tournament environment. My tournament playing days were back in my 20 something youth of 1999-2000. Back then (early 3rd edition) there were units you needed to contend with that were nearly impervious to the same kind of fire you described for the 2++ rerolls. It took 100+ shuriken catapult (or bolter) shots to take down a single death company marine. This added to the furious charge rules and blood rage made blood angles almost impossible to kill. We also had to deal with Thousand Sons troops that were written to be completely immune to anything less than str 5. So that's an infinite amount of S4 small arms.
These kind of units are not new. Both of these units needed Anti Tank weapons (which were far less common back then) to take out. Are the new deathstars that much worse?
One thing I will point out, back in the day (boy do I sound old now) they did limit comp. Most local tournaments followed the GW grand tournament pattern and encouraged lots of troops and non duplication. I was a pseudo outrider at the time (my friend was the actual outrider, but I helped him do all the local organizing) and we carried over these policies in local tournaments to good effect as much as they chafed sometimes.
One other thing I've noticed looking at the tournament write-ups here is that the limits have gone up over the years. Back in our day (there's that phrase again ) we played at 1500 pts with a 250 pt swappable option. Sometimes the last round would allow all 1750 pts to be used.
This solved 2 problems. At 1500 pts and with the comp (no more than 25% spent on HQ or loose comp pts) the really pricy deathstar units were impractical. When you only have 1500 pts to work with, and need to seize multiple objectives, a 750 pt deathstar is a HUGE investment. It also kept the rounds manageable so that they finished. It seems this might mitigate two of the biggest problems I've seen come up on forums.
You know your target audience better than I do. Have any of these been tried? Are they worth considering?
Kyrolon wrote: These kind of units are not new. Both of these units needed Anti Tank weapons (which were far less common back then) to take out. Are the new deathstars that much worse?
Yes, because there is not weapon (ignoring Strength D because that isn't going to happen) that circumvents rerollable 2+ invulnerable saves. It's not a matter of having the right weapons, it's that there are none. Regardless of if you fire 36 lascannons or 36 bolter shots, that will result in 1 wound on average.
Kyrolon wrote: At 1500 pts and with the comp (no more than 25% spent on HQ or loose comp pts) the really pricy deathstar units were impractical. When you only have 1500 pts to work with, and need to seize multiple objectives, a 750 pt deathstar is a HUGE investment. It also kept the rounds manageable so that they finished. It seems this might mitigate two of the biggest problems I've seen come up on forums.
Lowering the points is an interesting idea, but probably would only make the matter worse as both the seer council and the screamer star both easily fit in at 1500 while opponents would have even less tools to try and deal with them. Also both of these deathstars have no problem with objectives in the sense you mention, both can break into 4 separate units which are almost entirely jetbikes (meanining they can capture/contest > 36" away).
I don't really understand how can FW with 2++ rerollable is broken, while the key is to kill grim holder. This is broken? And 3 riptides are not? Serpent spam with auto-hit shield is not? Baron 2++ rerollable is not?
avedominusnox wrote: I don't really understand how can FW with 2++ rerollable is broken, while the key is to kill grim holder. This is broken? And 3 riptides are not? Serpent spam with auto-hit shield is not? Baron 2++ rerollable is not?
Erm, nobody is talking about FW...? Baron with a 2++ rerollable is exactly along the lines of what we're talking about. 3 Riptides is annoying, but not game-breaking. For comparison a 2+ rerollable Seer Council will not have taken a single wound by the time one Riptide is dead. By the time you've killed 3 Riptides, the council has suffered only 2.5 wounds. Still think those are comparable? And mind you, that's all assuming you're not using any armor ignoring weapons, in which case the council will take even less wounds by the time you kill the Riptides, as they will have rerollable 2+ cover and a rerollable 4++ (or as you mentioned a 2++ with Baron in the front) too while the riptide will just have maybe 3+ cover / 5++.
And serpent spam really isn't broken at all, on average it scores less hits than a tesla destructor does. It's a really good vehicle, don't get me wrong. It's just far from being as game-changing as the jetseer is.
I tend to think that those that think 2++ rerollable is just as annoying as a riptide don't understand probability.. To kill 15 wounds worth of riptides using non AP2 weapons you need to cause 90ish wounds
To kill 15 wounds worth of 2+ re-rollable you need to do 540! (or 1792 bolter shots ) There is a difference, it's no where even close to the same thing.
Tarpitting....denying movement through positioning....... ignoring them and going for the objectives.
As riptides have already proven this edition, just because something is on the table does not mean you have to kill it. There are several alternatives to simply pouring dice at a 2++ re-rollable saves.
Yes they can be annoying, but with random psychic abilities, a 3+ roll of the grimoire and then a psychic test to get the save, its not like the thing is a certainty. Even then it will often require a lot of points and may leave other areas of their list open for exploitation.
Some gunline armies simply do not want to change, and cry imbalance when simply shooting at something won't make it yield. This shows a lack of adaptation to a situation, as opposed to something that needs fixing.
I just used bolters because it's a large number, and large numbers get more attention. Could be applied to anything non-AP2 as it was mostly just based on wounds, not overall strength of the weapon used.
Sounds like all options are equally unfun which seems to point to a much more fundamental problem with the current meta.
Yup, that is one of the major issues, if you are not a top level tournament player (and sometimes even then) there is a bunch of stuff that sucks to play against.
Let me put it this way I can take screamer star to a small local tournament and probably just a s bad games as I will if I bring serpent spam...because in both cases my opponent (unless a good player) stands no chance of doing much....The biggest difference with Serpents is they can largely be corrected by having plentiful LOS blockers on the table...2+ re-rollables suck independent of LOS.
I guess the only positive thing I can say is thank god we don't have 5th Ed wound allocation going on now as well.
) this could be a very good idea.
You yourself have posted articles about how the game should be played as written, with
to an armor 15 fortress with a D-cannon! Bring on Stronghold Assault! Let the new supplements even the playing field. 
