First off, please don't vote if you do not play in tournaments nor do you intend to.

Second of all, please read the text below before voting to put this all in context so that you understand this specific situation and are not voting ignorant of the facts.

Why?

I am posting this poll to first, practice framing the questions in as informative and unbiased a way as possible for the poll I am going to shoot out to the LVO attendees tomorrow. Secondly, I am curious as to what everyone here thinks.

Why all the fuss? Am I just overreacting?

The Las Vegas Open, what will be our flagship event with already over 300 people signed up, is less than 60 days away. As head TO, I am getting daily emails and phone calls asking if the new data slates will be allowed, the new Nids, the new Escalation supplements, etc. I need to make decisions in the very near future so everyone can plan accordingly. We do not have the luxury of time, unfortunately.

How we do things now.

We use layered missions. Primary and Secondary win conditions based off of slightly modified book missions. W/L/D format. We have consistently gotten over 90% positive feedback on our format based on player feedback and feel very confident that we have built a fun, fair format. I don't know how much room there is in our format to make it more "fair," although I am certainly open to suggestions.

We are striving to have 2, large LoS blocking pieces of terrain on the table, for every 40K table. The intent is to help assault armies, tone down SAFH armies and to in general, create a more fun environment to game in. Again, with that in mind, not sure how much room there is to use terrain to make things more "fair."

We allow FW and to date, anything legal in 40K we have allowed.

We play at 1750pts with 2.5 (now) hour limits.

My Concern.

The issue now as I see it, is the increased complexity in the game creates incredibly powerful, and confusing combos. As a lot of this data is so new, I think a lot of folks really don't understand just how crazy things have gotten. For those of you who aren't up with the power curve, pretty much everything in the game is "Legal" for regular 40K now, and the FOC has more or less gone out the window as we have understood it up until now.

For example, you could see across the table from you an army similar to this:

Eldar primary with dual Bikeseers
Jetseer Council for all their craziness of 2+ rerolls of all types, speed, etc.
Baron for hit and Run, +1 to go first, 2++
Warriors in a Venom with Grissly Trophies that lets all the psykers reroll failed psychic checks
Coteaz with some shooty, scoring, cheap Buddies for IBEY, Reroll of Seize, Dark Excomunication/Divination, etc.
Possibly a second Inquisitor if desired for Servo Skulls to shut down enemy infiltrating and scouts
Jetbikes for Objectives
Tau Fire Support Cadre with a Riptide and Broadsides with Interceptor/Skyfire/Fire Support/etc.

1750 with points to spare, and 4-6 scoring units depending on structure, goes first most games, neigh-invincible deathstar unit, psychic buffs, blah, blah, blah.

This is "legal" 40K now. This is the game we're moving towards. The important question is: is this the game we want to play? Do we think that is fun, fair, and competitive?

4 different armies in a single list, half of which are digital. 4 isn't the limit, either you could potentially have a single list with rules drawn from 6 or more different books quite easily. Add in Super Heavies and things become even more complex. Now, folks have made this argument with FW in the past, but we've not had problems with that specific issue before so perhaps it isn't a big deal. Gamers tend to just resolve it at the table as best they can and move forward.

So what, you might be asking?

I am not here to debate if this list is beatable, the best, or whatever, just to illustrate that you can now cherry pick the most powerful units and powers from 4 or more different books now, and it is "official 40K." What I am asking is if this type of thing is what you all want to play against on a regular basis at an event as this is what is coming with unrestricted 40K, count on it.

The lid for what we are doing has been taken off. I fear that folks will show up and get absolutely blind-sided by insane combos and not know what game they're even playing any more. Maybe I am overreacting.

The question is, what do we do about it, if anything? We want our event to be fun! First and foremost. Defining that can be tricky. Ultimately we will give our attendees the event they want, I am just trying to avoid problems before they happen if at all possible.

So, with the above information in mind, please vote on what you would prefer to see happen.

After voting if you want to add why, I am all ears. Also, if you think the questions could be worded better, please say why. Thanks!

In this test game, Jy2 busts out Be'Lakor and an FMC/Soulgrinder Daemon/CSM list against an insane Mash-up list Spam Adam pilots that consists of Eldar/Dark Eldar/Tau and a Revenant Titan! Under current 40K rules, all of this stuff is legal for "standard" games. Would you want to play games like this in a tournament or no?

So just to note, the poll is basically for what you'd like allowed were you to attend this event. The question is a little hard to find

Will be really interesting to see how this turns out, and even more interesting to see an identical poll maybe a month and then 2 months from now.

I changed the poll question to reflect that and make it clearer!

I hate hate hate making this comparison, but it's appropriate. I think it's time for 40k to take a note from Magic: The Gathering, specifically formats. In magic you have your choice of Standard, Modern, Legacy, etc. etc. Like it or not a lot fo these things apply to certain people, but not others. So multiple formats would help cater to players of all desires. For instance:

The Apocalypse Has Come: All supplements, codices, formations, escalation, fortifications, everything. All of it. The power level is absurd, but that appeals to some people.
A Tactical Affair: Codices, Supplements, Allies matrix. Done. No detachments outside Primary and Allied, plus 1 fortification slot. Fairly better balanced and more reasonable.
Loyal To The End: Codices, no allies, no supplements, one fortification slot. More tight reigned, removing a lot of broken combos cross faction.
The Elite Few: Codices, no allies, supplements allowed, one fortification slot, no more than 1 of any unit. So 1 warpspider unit, 1 wave serpent, etc. Super strict, but might appeal to a few.

If you run events with say something like the above, and whatever else seem like a good idea, your attendance numbers will determine what's most popular and survives as it were. We do this natural selection style by letting the strongest survive through process of elimination. It will be inefficient to start off with, but in the long run each 'format' will gain its own fanbase. And the formats that aren't popular enough will inevitably not be supported. This would also allow an easy way for players to get together and have roughly the same expectations. "Oh hey, wanna play a Tactical game?" "Nah, I play that format, how about a Loyal game?" "Sure I can build that!".

My two cents at least. Not a solution, more of a path to a solution rather than trying to understand the loud rabble and emotion that inevitably comes from situation/media like this.

My "dream 40k GT" looks like this:

-1500 (MAYBE 1750) points, 2 hours 30 minutes per round, 1 hour 15 minutes per player, enforced by strict time control with chess clocks (if your flag falls before the game ends by random game length, you lose)

-Everything allowed, including FW, BUT: maximum of two books/sources used for an army. This means that you can use two Codexes, or a Codex and a supplement, or a Codex and a datasheet, or a Codex and some FW units. You can't use two Codexes and a supplement, or two Codexes and Forge World, or two Codexes and a datasheet, etc. etc.

The latter rule is NOT intended as a form of balance, but rather to make it easy on people. The accelerated GW release schedule has come out with so many rules that people cannot be reasonably expected to know everything. As such, there is a limit on two sources that you can use to make your army, simply to make it so that your army will be easily understandable for your opponent. THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO REBALANCE THE GAME.

I'm not sure if people would go for that-- especially the chess clocks-- but if I won the lottery and decided to run events with no thought to making my money back, that's what I'd be doing. I know you guys at Frontline have a substantial investment in your events, so you might not be able to do anything as extreme as that, but that's the way I'd handle these matters.

@Pleasntnoodles

That has been suggested multiple times, actually and I am definitely open to that.

The difference between 40K and MTG though, is that you need space and preparation for minis games in terms of terrain, missions packets, etc. Also, prize support becomes an issue too, as you have to support each event. 2 would be the maximum viable "main" event, in my view.

@Kingsley

We are actually really open to Chess clocks but what has held us back is the expense more than anything else. The damn things, even at wholesale pricing, are really expensive!

Plus, it would have to be a gradual process, the community would need to work it's way into that over time as they did with Warmachine.

-1500 (MAYBE 1750) points, 2 hours 30 minutes per round, 1 hour 15 minutes per player, enforced by strict time control with chess clocks (if your flag falls before the game ends by random game length, you lose)

Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Chess clocks are a good idea in theory, but I think a more reasonable solution is necessary. For instance, I'd be in favor of players timing their turns to add on to scoresheets at the end of each round. It will quickly become clear if a person is consistently failing to finish games. Maybe Torrent of Fire could add that information on as well. No need to instantly punish players for what could be an anomaly game

@JGrand

That is possible yes, but if you are on the clock you are going to say something to your opponent to speed them up. In theory, anyway.

We have also considered announcing what turn the game should be on at designated intervals to let players know where they should be.

I'm gonna look at this from two perspectives.


As a player:

YES TO: what I prefer to play is Codices, Forgeworld units *AND* army lists, Digital Codices, Codex Supplements (e.g. Iyandend) and dataslates that cover individual units (e.g. Be'Lakor). This allows people to bring any model produced under the Games Workshop umbrella (barring superheavies), and run it as it was initially intended without mucking with things like the FoC.

UNDECIDED: As yet I don't think I can truly make an informed decision on Escalation or Stronghold Assault without reading the books.

NO TO: I didn't like the way formations were implemented in Apocalypse and I like them even less in "normal" 40k where they get powerful buffs and exemption from the FoC and pay no points for it. Allies are another thing I'm not a huge fan of. To date, I've yet to see it used for anything other than exploitation to create unintended synergies to plug gaps in capabilities, I've yet to see it used in any creative capacity, even in friendly leagues. Comp is something I'm not a huge fan of for various reason that have been retread many times, nor do I like TO bans on specific things or rules changes if avoidable (though this is not blanket).

The INQ book presents a bit of an issue here as it's built entirely around allies, as a player, to allow it to be used but also minimize the appearance of issues I don't like seeing, I'd say that it must be fielded as part of the original FoC if taken as an allied contingent.


As a Tournament Organizer:

There's a lot to consider here. Having been a TO (though not for a 300 person event but for 30-40 person events), I understand that TO's have to be able to manage the event, ensure lists are legal, handle rules disputes, and make sure tables are set up correctly. This all has to be balanced against the fact that GW makes this stuff for people to use and people will want to use all of it, but sometimes there have to be limits.

I'm basing these thoughts off the idea that the event is designed to draw as many people as possible, as opposed to the Warhammer equivalent of an E-Sport event.

YES TO: Codecies, Forgeworld units *AND* army lists, Digital Codices, Codex Supplements, unit dataslates, allies, TO restrictions, and Rules modifications to the extent they are necessary to run the event (e.g. terrain setup, fortification deployment, time limits, etc) which may also include limiting how many books an army can draw from (i.e. may not draw from more than 3 books) to make verifying lists a realistic objective for the TO, and perhaps some that may be derived from player input (e.g. if a majority of players say they don't want 2++ rerollable saves in the event).

UNDECIDED: Escalation: not sure how Superheavies will affect everything yet, I have a feeling D weapons may just prove to be too derpy, but perhaps not.

NO TO: formation dataslates. At least thus far it's just "free special rules for taking X units". No reason to bother with the headache. Stronghold Assault: tentatively, this sounds like it could mess with terrain and table set up a lot or just not be functional for pre-made tables. Still not a fan of Comp, don't think it solves anything.

I voted. Though you did leave out the restricted FW option which I would have selected. As it was I did not vote for FW as unrestricted FW isn't my personal preference.

I voted for all codices, allies, digital codices, and supplements. And I should have added limited data slates for individual units being added like Belakor.

I voted for limited rules adjustment. Basically for the 2+ Re-rollable. My vote for how to change that would be that any save reroll cannot be better than 3+. Example, Screamerstar would save on a 2++ and if failed would save on a 3++ on the re-roll.

Will this tell you what you really want without knowing the unique voters rather than the total votes? Right now, anywhere from 24 to 145 people have voted in this poll.

I didn't vote, FYI, just interested in the results. Would love to be able to go but not in the cards. Hopefully in the future!

@Namelssbard

I'm pretty sure that's why standard codices is there. It pretty much shows the number of people voting as it's doubtful anyone wants a tournament without codices

@Reecius

I totally get that and agree, it's definitely way more work, but if some form of ruling body was created, like a committee off the top TOs or some such, then the work could be split for designing, like taking the top 3 tournaments, and rather than each having to come up with it's own structure, they all agree on one and essentially near the same work has been done, less work for years after that/events fater that since ideally just adjustments would have to be made.

Prize support is entirely a whole other bag of marbles. This could be achieved by having a master prize pool, and preregistering players to assign the prize pool allocation to each format based on attendance. So you have one event where "Standard" is super popular and 4 people show up for "Escalation League", you give 90% of the prize pool to the "Standard" format and the rest to "Escalation". The worry here is if TOs decide something, and it prove unpopular even in the short term, you're losing player base. My vote would be shotgun approach it with preregsitration of both players and lists so you can determine if a format will run (maybe ask people to pick a first and second choice for formats so they're guaranteed for one of them if one gets cancelled?), and let the player base democratically figure it out via a ad hoc popular vote of attendance.

The prize support be somewhat rough for the first couple events, but just like in magic 2 or 3 popular leagues will shake out and things will start to run smoothly, with the majority of players being happy....er. Happier.

I don't want to ban or modify core rules or official add-ons in the name of 'time'.

But some of the time-wasting crazy combos can be done at low point values.

If we had to choose a breaking point, I would rather see all the army lists allowed, but allies removed as it is arbitrary and unfair to many codexes and the crazy combos we see crush the game both in complexity and time.

it is hard to be a TO in what 40k is becoming. It is being hard to even play it anymore.

Alright, small brain wave to fix escalation, and it kind of falls under comp rules. But what if super heavies were allowed but at the cost of not bringing any allies? So you want to bring a baneblade? Then you're going to be pure guard. Suddenly no DA powerfield libbies twinking baneblades. On a similar note Formations can be made somewhat better by just making them take up the FOC slots, not as a free detachment. You gain the benefits of the formation, but for the Tau one it would force you to go tau main and not allows you to bring silly things like 15 broadsides and 4 riptides, or other armies suddenly getting amazing interceptor for other broken needs.

I voted for comp. I would like to see you take a hit for the more combos you take (i.e. Allies, Forge World, etc.)

For example:
Jetseers=bad
Jetseers+Baron=Very Bad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Reecius wrote:
[b]First off, please don't vote if you do not play in tournaments nor do you intend to.]

Good luck with that.

@Vaktahi

Thanks for the thoughtful reply! Much appreciated.

@Brad

Yeah, I am sure I could have added more variations onto the list, but it was getting pretty long! I will drill down further on the LVO poll.

@Nameless

As Hulk said, I was hoping to put the Codex tag in there as a control group to try and guage everything else of.

@Pleasantnoodles

Good idea with the prize pool, I like that . You have one, big pool of prizes and then allocate them out based on event attendance. I always in the past have made our prize support transparent before the event, but that may be a good solution.

@nklesch

Yeah, the game is crazy at this point in time, no doubt. I am sure it will stabilize eventually and we'll get used to it but we're behind the 8 ball right now with decision making.

We don't want to ban any lists, either. That sucks. We just may want to reign some of this stuff in a bit is all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Blackmoor

I know we will get non tournament players voting, but I had to cover my basis.

And yes, hahaha, Seer Council+Baron is no bueno.

 JGrand wrote:
Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Your rolls, your time.

 Kingsley wrote:

 JGrand wrote:
Thing is, aside from putting certain builds at a disadvantage, there is one aspect you are entirely overlooking--the fact that I can waste time on my opponent's turn. There is nothing stopping a player from taking saves one at a time in LOS situations. Furthermore, what is to stop a player from slow-rolling in assaults as well, in order to intentionally take another person's time?

Your rolls, your time.

This is why chess clocks are too difficult to make work, and that is greatly pronounced on a large scale. The many many passes of who is supposed to act will cause the clock to need to be hit so frequently that people either will neglect it, or they will waste even more time than you're trying to save by paying too much attention to it.

Time wasting and slow play NEEDS to be addressed for 40k to really work as a tournament game, but chess clocks have no chance of solving the issues.

@Kingsely

So you propose you hit the clock for every action for each player? That is like, 100% guaranteed to be forgotten mid game by a large number of players,.

I Tried to like allies but I agree it shouldn't be used in tournaments. I only ever see it used to give unfair advantages. I feel it was put in there to make fluffy home games (so you can bring whatever you want to a game) without thoughts of balance and hoping people would not abuse it but at tournaments the point is to build the nastiest list and the abuse runs rampant to where its no longer fun but still with in reason to play that way. allies seams like an optional rule that doesn't change the game to much with out it either (actually adds more to the balance).

Voted for core dex's, allies, supps and digi dex's. I.e what is in competitive 40k now. Seems I am with the majoirty so far

(copy and pasting to show a screen shot in case it changes drasticaly)

Core Codices.
16% [ 38 ]
Allies.
14% [ 34 ]
Codex Supplements, ie Clan Raukaan, etc.
15% [ 36 ]
Digital Codices, ie, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle, etc. 15% [ 35 ]

Dataslates, you really want to make a call on them now before they have all been released?.

Interesting poll though, look forward to seeing it with a few more votes!.

@Levi

You are not alone on allies, I have been hearing that quite a bit. However, I honestly think that would turn people away from an event. And, every book going forward is written assuming you are using allies.

@MarkyMark

Do we want to make a call on formations this early?

No! hahaha, but we just don't have time to wait for all of them to come out, play-test them (already into January) and then make a call on them, unfortunately as that is so close to the LVO. We want to give folks time to adjust based on that data.

I think we get the gist of them now with the first 3 40K releases. They are "out of FoC" add-on groups of units with free extra buffs, or Special Characters.

Some of them are cool! Some, not so much.

We could get a curve ball in there, but I think we have a pretty good idea of what to expect.

I hope this data is good to help people get an idea of what's going on and shape their own events, too!

I agree that allies are only ever used to create the strongest possible army. However, EVERY unit chosen in a competitive setting should be in an effort to maximize your own power/chances of winning. Taking allies isn't particularly different than choosing tervigons with three psychic powers - you aren't doing THAT to be fluffy, either. You would do it because they're really good troops and you want to win.

Also, it's worth considering that, as the old codexes disappear, the new ones will have been written with the idea of allies in mind. Not to start a debate about whether or not they playtest this stuff at all, but at the least, they will have an intention that we may not want to mess with too much that these new books should be able to join together. I'm as frustrated by Tau-dar as the next guy, but it might be a bit much to overrule the designers on that one.

I voted for core codecies, allies, supplements, digital only codecies, fortifications book, limited data slates, and rules modification.

I think the first four are pretty straight forward and that most players wouldn't want changes to those.

Fortifications - As long as there isn't anything game-breaking (ie Strength D gun emplacements, etc) I think the fortification book is fine to add. Hard to say until a few days from now, but most likely it's fine. If there are a couple fortifications in it with game-breaking rules/weapons I would just ban those specific ones.

Limited data slates - I would just ban formations personally. I think Belakor is perfectly reasonable, and if more characters/units are added along the lines of him (ie, they consume a slot on the force org of specific armies) they have merit to being in the game. Just not formations which circumvent the normal rules of army composition. I really dislike the idea of players having armies comprised of something along the lines of DA/IG + Inqusition + Tau Cadre + Storm Wing + Ghost Warriors etc etc.

Rules modifications - 2+ re-rollables is of course the rule that concerns me, but this vote comes with a major caveat. I think that nothing should be put into place until the Nids book drops (if it drops in time to be legal for LVO). Depending on SotW, psychic powers may take a hit and things may balance out naturally. However if that's not the case, I think it's definitely something that should be looked at. I'm not sure what the best solution is unfortunately.

I'm looking forward to getting the poll tomorrow.

Not going to go into what I selected and why I didn't select other things - that horse is being beaten to death in another thread.

I would like to see the 2++ rerollable get a nerd to 2+ 4+. Bear in mind I plan on playing Eldar or Daemons at the LVO.

Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

I chose rules modification. Single Force Org, as described here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/566355.page

Take whatever you want, legally, from codices, supps, allies, dataslates, whatever.. But it all has to fit in a single force org chart. Dataslate units are slotted individually (Firebase Cadre takes up 2 heavy and 1 elite).

I voted for everything. I want to be able to use Escalation. I want to be able to use Stronghold Assault. I want my opponent to be happy that he took what he wanted in his list, not what someone told him he had to take.


I want to play 40k.......... Not Bob's version of 40k...Not Jimmy's version of 40k.

Just 40k with all the rules!



Join the New Team Zero Comp!!!!

MVBrandt wrote:
Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

I would think 66 is the goal number of people voting as of this post. Take core codex and add ' take everything' as the number of people. If you choose take everything I don't think you would pick out individual sub choices from that and assume core books fall into that choice.

The problem is that GW does not care about tournament players or their games.

If you are playing at home or a friendly game you can either enjoy taking the hardest list you can, or if you do not want to play against something that has a 2++ rerollable save you do not have to.

Lately GW has not only come out with a new edition, but a lot of codexes and supplements, and other things (not including FW).

This has had a detrimental effect on tournament play because you do not have the ability to refuse whom you play against, or their army.

Also this has created many rules issues since a lot of issues are created from not only their poorly written rules, but how they interact with existing rules to create unforeseen combinations, and they do not seem to be interested in issuing any FAQs as long as the money keeps rolling in.

As a tournament player it is my opinion that the more that GW adds to the game the worst tournaments have become.

Now I am not saying that codex only is the way to go, but all these additions need to be looked at critically.

DarthDiggler wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

I would think 66 is the goal number of people voting as of this post. Take core codex and add ' take everything' as the number of people. If you choose take everything I don't think you would pick out individual sub choices from that and assume core books fall into that choice.

That is a good catch, thank you! I missed that option. It also adds FW into the majority alongside the previously mentioned ones in the fore post, with a healthy 43/70 or so.

MVBrandt wrote:
Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

You misread the Dataslates one, it's very low right now. Right on with the others so far, though.

 RiTides wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:
Interesting early responses ... if you go by 45 as the vote total (core codices, we assume nobody voted NO for core codices) ...

which it must be at least ...

Core, Allies, Digital Codices, Digital Supplements, Dataslates are all nearly unanimously supported. Everything else *So far* is under 50%, with FW as the highest of those in the minority of support (19/45 at the time of this posting).

You misread the Dataslates one, it's very low right now. Right on with the others so far, though.

Oh thank god ...

I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

Sheepishly ..... I did.

That was the intent, I hoped.

And add both votes for dataslates together to get a feel for how many people are for them in some sense.

See, learning a lot already on how to word the questions better! haha

@thread

Thanks for all the feedback, fellas! Interesting results on some of them, some of this is exactly what I expected.

So almost 1/3 say play with everything so far?
22 vs 50 for codexes...

 Reecius wrote:
That was the intent, I hoped.

And add both votes for dataslates together to get a feel for how many people are for them in some sense.

See, learning a lot already on how to word the questions better! haha

@thread

Thanks for all the feedback, fellas! Interesting results on some of them, some of this is exactly what I expected.

I think RiTides makes a good point that it's hard to count the double vote (i.e., if someone clicks "All" and then also clicks "Dataslate," he's effectively voted for it twice wittingly or not, whereas someone who doesn't click "All" and deliberately does not click "Dataslate" is only casting "half" the vote of those who double up). Effectively, due to the format, it's hard to say what it's worth yet lol. The FW example is a good one ... either less than half of your voters want it, or more than half, substantially in either direction lol.

Yeah, there is some overlap. Some folks will have checked everything and other stuff as well but how many is in all likelihood impossible to tell.

I should have left the "everything" vote out.

But, this is a trial run, so that is good that I made this mistake now! Haha, that was one of the main reasons I did it, to practice asking the right questions to get good data.

Agreed, I actually think it's very good. If this was a form you would want that option- but it would basically be an option to check all boxes, soas not to favor folks leaving things out (as people just get tired of clicking). But yeah in this format, for people who might not read fully (despite the title) it's certainly possible they pick that option, then pick other options "for emphasis"

Unrelated, but MVBrandt and Darth, with your post counts and join dates you'd think you'd have picked up an avatar by now

Yeah, and if the count was for total voters not votes, that would help a lot, too.

Ah, and I thought I had worked out how to do this best, too! hahaha

Oh well, this is still good data, maybe just not as pointed as we would have hoped for.

What's most interesting (to me) so far is the super strong support for digital codexes and codex supplements (nearly unanimous!) but much less support for "other" additions (dataslates, super heavies, fortifications) with the notable exception of some strong FW support.

For example, ignoring the first option and just looking at the votes for individual categories of these, you've got:

Codices - 52
Allies - 47
Codex Supplements 49 (More than allies!)
Digital Codices - 44

So there's a slight dip on that last option, but these are basically universal so far. Particularly the first 3, but I think the 4th is close enough.

No other individual selection has more than 13 votes, with the exception of FW at 22, and "everything" at 23. So even if you add the "everythings" into each individual category, nothing but FW is getting much support.

The only other hard category to determine is Dataslates, because there is an "all" and "limited" option. But again, folks could be double-selecting so you can't necessarily add these together. In one sense it's actually good that you don't have a "limited FW" option, because you would've had that same issue (not getting a clear indication due to the vote possibly splitting, or folks double selecting). But I think it's pretty safe to say that blanket Dataslate allowance is not getting strong support at this early stage.

Wow. I think it would almost be a mistake to limit everything except super heavies. Is GW going nuts lately; hell Yea.!

Your events have been always been “freeballing” or a nonconformer you been the lone wolf fighting to have everything allowed at events. When everyone was running comp you took a step back and we are not going to do that. I could be wrong you but weren’t you one first tournaments that used Forgeworld in a normal 40k event?

It would be funny the no comp team running a comp event. I almost voted for comp because of that, but I voted for everything (besides using super heavies because I want to look at the rules first).

BTW I will be playing Tyranids at LVO if the codex is out in time.

Core Codex, Allies, Supplemants, Forge World. Limited Data Slates. Now by limited i mean you can only use a data slate if it adds a UNIT to your army, no formations.
Further more, No more then 2 codex per army. I might even g as far to say Supplements count towards that.
For example if you want inquisition in your army that is all you get for allies, nothing else.
If you want Iyandan, that is all you get.
I know you guys like your rebel spirit, BUT you guys also have to sometimes put your foot down and make a stand. We 40k players are standing before the darkness an we cannot let it swallow us..........I need to stop playing so much pathfinder

I am beginning to think that it would be better to run 2 events with 128 players (one with everything, and one without) than 1 tournament with 256 players.

That way you can keep people happy, and it has the added bonus of lowering the rounds down from 8 to 7.

If you want to see the real results of how some tournament players feel, e-mail the people who have already signed up for the LVO and ask then which kind of event they would prefer. Note that since they have already signed up for an event that has FW the results should favor everything.

I'm already signed up for the LVO and voted for the first three and would like to offer the idea of allowing only those units that are in physically printed material from GW. Codex, Allies, Supplements(if it's an actual book). That way there is always something present at the table that is not digital for both players to refer to for all the units on the board. I will play whatever format is provided and have faith that Reece and crew will make a decision that puts having a good time first for all players.

It's a complex answer:

Absolutely yes:
* Codices
* FW books (including army lists, but NOT including experimental rules)
* Paper codex supplements

These are the "core" of each army, and the easiest to understand. Obviously most people are pretty familiar with the codices, and supplements and FW books tend to add things that follow pretty much the same general theme. An Armored Battlegroup or Elysian Drop Troops army is pretty straightforward if you're familiar with the IG codex, and a Farsight army is pretty straightforward if you're familiar with the Tau codex. And in terms of accessibility this covers the vast majority of units that people would want to bring.

Probably yes:
* Digital-only codices
* Digital-only supplements
* Allies

In terms of content the digital codices are no worse than paper books, the issue here is GW's stealth updates and the "what happens if my ipad dies" problem. If a TO is confident in being able to handle the special problems caused by the digital-only books then they should be allowed.

Allies raise some questions, but overall I think they're too popular to ban. At this point too many people are used to the idea of being able to bring allies in their army and would be unhappy if they were told they weren't welcome unless they change their army. IMO the few issues with allies should be handled by special-case bans or rule changes.

Probably no:
* Allied formations
* Data slate units
* FW experimental rules
* "Special" codices (C:Inquisition)

Allied formations and "special" codices are where things really get to be a mess. Balance seems to be a major question, having potentially four or more separate armies on the table is too complicated and bad for diversity between codices, and they feel like a rush job that someone put together in a few minutes instead of a proper book. And they're digital-only, which means all of the same problems as digital-only codices. Likewise for the single units, we've only seen one so far but I don't like where the trend is going. And theme-wise they don't really add much that you can't already do with basic allies, so the main point seems to be adding powerful units like divination inquisitors and Riptides to every army that wants them.

FW experimental rules suffer from balance problems and being explicitly released for feedback rather than being final "official" rules, so I don't think they're really worth the trouble unless there's a strong demand for them.

Absolutely no:
* Superheavies
* Comp scores

Superheavies in normal 40k would be a mess. Games with them tend to be very black and white, either you can counter the superheavy and you probably kill it immediately and then easily win against the few supporting units your opponent could afford to put on the table, or you aren't prepared for it and you get crushed by an unstoppable D-weapon carrier. Either way it's not much fun. It's possible that the new expansion will have rules that balance them and I'd change my mind, but I'm not very optimistic about that.

Comp scores are a terrible idea. Blanket rules that apply to all armies always end up penalizing lots of other things unfairly as a side effect of punishing the real problems, and comp scoring in general tends to be strongly biased by individual (and very subjective) opinions about how the game "should" be played. If a unit/army/etc is a problem then deal with it specifically through bans or rule changes.

Uncertain:
* Fortification supplement
* Rule changes
* Ban lists

The fortification supplement is a complete unknown right now. I don't think anyone can offer an informed opinion until the book is released.

Bans and rule changes are either great or terrible depending on the exact choices. I would support a limited number of carefully-targeted rule changes to address problems that meet two requirements: a clearly demonstrated bad effect on game balance (not just speculation about how it might be overpowered), and a clearly demonstrated bad effect on fun (for example, re-rollable 2++ units are very frustrating to play against). Candidates include getting rid of re-rollable invulnerable saves and changing the artillery rules to the ones from 5th edition to bring sabre guns and earthshakers back to what they used to be. Likewise for ban lists, I would support a 0-X limit on certain units if there is a clear reason to do it (Riptides maybe), but I don't think anything is so bad that you can't even take one copy once you make appropriate rule changes to fix the multi-unit combos.

I think it'd be tough to get rid of digital coders though, because SoB only has a digital codex. While they aren't widely used, you are saying a legitimate army may not be used because GW decided not to print it in a book format. Just a general thought

If having a hard back codex is required I will not attend. I do not want books that are not in digital form. I buy the books from GW that I want on iBooks the minute they are released. I don't want to carry around multiple books and I certainly don't want to have books that are not up to date. The DA book sealed the deal for me, and I won't spend double the money just to have an out of date paper version of the codex to play in tournaments.

So here are my thoughts:

In general Im for codicies/digital codecies, fortifications, allies, and NON experimental FW (yeah no r'varna please)

However I'm also for basic rules tweaks for certain builds that I think would fix a lot of problems.

The new problem children:

Inquisition: um, why isnt this an ally? Just make it an ally... an ally without needing a troop tax, great! people would still jump at it in a heartbeat and hey no more triple codex lists.

Formations: good in theory, could be used to strengthen currently weaker builds (for example a pod formation which reduces interceptor fire by 1 bs, etc etc), but are currently mishandleded. I dont understand why they just didnt include this in the normal FOC. If you can fit it in your ally/main, great you get the bonus (or can pay for it), if not then you dont get the formation. clean, simple, doesn't break every army in half with random tau friends everywhere (seriously, who thought allowing almost everyone to get the best tau has to offer WITH tank hunter and no tax a good idea?) .


Superheavies: It was mentioned that you can only get a lord of war with no allies whatsoever. I really like this idea and it fluff wise makes some sense (not trusting allies enough to commit presumably an extremely rare and precious weapon to the battle), though ultimately it may still be not enough. Fundamentally D weapons are just too darn dumb, even in apocalypse, to work. They kill too much and remove too many rules (no cover OR invulnerable?). It really should instead be str 10 ap 1 with a few extra rules to make it nasty (possible especially so against fellow D weapons), but not going to wipe out half your opponents army in one go. So I vote no for a bit tournament wise, i just don't want the game to be reduced down he whose superheavy survives and the 10 rolls it takes to determine the winner.

Rules to tweak:

2++ re-rollables: as far as I understand the screamerstar one is realtivly easy to fix, you just make it not go below 3++ like normal tzeetch. Honestly I think these are best by a case by case basis, though a blanket "anything with a 2++ is 3++ instead" isnt terrible either, and it's certainly easier to remember.

ICs with MCs: lets just stop this one, it really doesnt seem like what was intended, and is kind of silly. If the MC itself is itself IC then go for it, but otherwise no ICs with MCs.

*EDIT*: as pointed out multi unit MCs shouldnt be harmed by this, so I cant actually be general here
ICs with Riptides: while I personally would vote just stopping this one, I would be okay with forcing them to get a drone at least to do it.

there's a couple others im missing for sure but those are def some biggies, and are relativly easy and clean fixes.


Then there are the bugaboos like serpent shield/nightscyths/mss/etc. Um.. yeah.. i dunno, i dont think specific type nerfs are really going to be accepted as easily but if we're willing to go there:

serpent shield a 1 use item OR doesnt ignore cover
nightscythes/mss points increased by about 25 points then voila, problems solved.
strip the eldar jetbike 36 turboboost down to 24 (48 in a turn? that's faster than flyers! you have to both have and GO supersonic to get to those speeds!)
no nightscythe or other dedicated flyer able to drop past.. i dunno.. 18? i thought nightscythes were the only ones that could drop at 36 but if not then something a bit global here.
coteaz.. yeah just coteaz, lets fix that one (strip i've been expecting you and his point value is fine, or bump his points up 10-15 and make it interceptor in the 12 inch bubble)
5 point EWO: um, how about 10 instead? k thanks.
skyshield landing pad: just.. all of it. 4++, how charging is handled up it, the inability to shoot it. just lets start over on that one.

Regarding Comp:

i read the da boyz article and it did seem like the comp did pretty well. limiting the FOC a bit isnt a terrible idea and one im generally okay with. However having said that I deliberately go TAC so i automatically am not bothered by Comp since it doesnt change my list at all. Thus I am a bit biased for it here.


Final Thoughts:

I think the best road forward is probably a shotgun type multiple main events to figure out what people like and what is int he end, breaking the game and not. This may have to be some non standard uber "experiment" event with less prize support than normal but more an emphasis on "how to fix the game" and get as many people as possible. I really like the idea of a master prize pool tho that's divvyed by attendance, that makes perfect sense to me.

Ultimately I think what will be needed is some rules tweaks and going against GW here a bit. We're gonna have to either fundamentally rebalance or just ban the superheavies, and we're just gonna have to lump all the formations/random inquisition codicies into the standard main/ally setup that we are more used too/getting ahandle on. Quad codex armies are not going to help this game. As for the little niggling bananas stuff.. maybe one of the shotguns is with those sillypants rules fixed, and we'll see if players like them.

Maybe lets all hope GW is setting itself up for a buy and wizards buys it out?

I think you should have left the first choice out as you can choose alll of those things individually if you want them...it skews the results a bit (did someone pick that and then check all the boxes or did they just check the first box?)

I went for

Core + Allies + supplements + limited Dataslates (to be determined upon full release but right now units not formations)

No on escalation and stronghold as I don't have enough Info yet, I have a feeling escalation would be definite no, but stronghold I'm not sure.

I went No on FW, mostly because I would like some structure around it, but I am not fully opposed here either. (i.e. it would not keep me from attending.)

I voted for rules changes fixing 2++, mass ignores cover and/or Tau Buff Commander, perhaps some of the derided FW units. I think rules modifications is better than a ban list or comp because players can still use their units they will just be less powerful.

I posted this list in the other tread of my ideal rule fixes but it would need some testing and work to do this much.

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'd go with your max two events idea and run with the following:

All In Tourney- everything allowed* with the clear understanding this is for not the faint of heart. Bring all the toys within legal limits and see what happens. It could be loads of fun with everyone getting what they dreamed as their pimped out army, or it could also end with everyone frustrated as no one does gak for 5-6 turns and ends with draws for everyone.

Softcore Tourney- a tourney with more balanced lists, modified by diversity. So you allow most everything still but award points for avoiding the more powerful units and adding diversity to your list by not taking more than 1 of units. Of course this is subjective in how to grade units but allows people to bring fluffier lists and units. Points taken away for adding in supplements and alies, ect..

*Understand everything must make sense and stuff so experimental rules are out for example for FW.

Nice Survey. I would suggest if you redo it that you eliminate the top option for everything and have 4 Forge World categories to get a more accurate count.

Otherwise some may not understand the differences between the different levels of Forge World and thus group Titans alongside things that have already transitioned to 40k like Valkyries or Tauros Assault Vehicles.

The 4 selections I suggest to use instead of one Forge World choice are:

40K Approved stamped Forge World (These are approved for use in regular 40K games)

God of War Stamped Forge World (These are approved to fill the God of War FOC slot recently added by Escalation)

Apocalypse Only Stamped Forge World (These are approved for Apocalypse, some of these also have a God of War stamp)

Experimental Rules Stamped Forge World (These are published before final approval and released for testing only )

Again, thanks for the survey. This will be my only input to it since LA is a bit far for me to go on a Weekend. I hope your event goes well.

That rulebook that GW sells you isn't tournament friendly to begin with.

I've been saying for years that TO's need to come up with a tournament ruleset because drinking the GW koolaid and thinking everything is fine, isn't. I don't see this happening because TO's are concerned that this will cause a drop in attendance. Well Da-Boyz have been doing it to some extent for years and that's a pretty popular event.


Here's what gets me. Most TO's have been playing this game through a majority of the editions. With that store of knowledge they should have seen what works and what doesn't and come to the realization that it's not that hard to streamline the game for better, faster tournament play. (Ex. Fix the assault phase to make it less fiddly and actually viable, get rid of true LOS, fix allies & fliers.) A lot of games have different beer/pretzel rules and tournament rulesets.[u] GW isn't going to release tournament rules so why don't all you TO's put your big brains together and make this happen? The INAT was like a noncommittal attempt at this but they haven't gone far enough. If you think I'm wrong then by all means ignore me, but ask yourself, deep down is this game as good as it could be or are we just going along with it because that's what we were told to do? People follow good ideas. Stop hanging onto the hand that is clearly trying to punch you in the face.


The problem with the tournaments now is that they are all like Adepticon Gladiator and that's fine every once in a while, but it gets old really fast when that is the only event in town.

If you want to keep everything legal then you might as well offer up "codex only" or similar event too.

AFAIK they have removed the 40k approved stamp from FW units/models. As to the stronghold book, tourny wise it has to be a no . Why?, pre set terrain, the fortifcations take up way too much space to keep moving terrain about. I have heard of some tournies in the US where players set the terrain but in the UK all boards are pre set.

That is easy to get around though, I already do you can bring Fortifications, but if you are unable to place them, you are not allowed (most boards have space to place it somewhere in your table half, just maybe not where you want to.) So most people don't bring larger ones but they are not banned.

I am really glad I did this practice survey, now.

I shouldn't have put in that first question and could have worded some of others a little better, but I got largely what I was looking for. I wanted to put all the options in there, even some we honestly wouldn't even consider (dropping the core codices? haha) because I wanted to test the waters and needed some constants from which to measure the other opinions expressed.

I have a lot of thoughts I want to share on how I am interpreting the data, but, I don't want to skew the LVO poll results, so I will hold off on my commentary for now. In the meantime, thank you all very much for contributing and please continue to give feedback!

One of my selections was comp. I've really come to like the Astro-nomican comp system. I used it at a tournament in August (7 games, BP scoring) and it worked very well at promoting variety in army lists and selections. Every player starts with 20 points and deductions are made based off the unit selections made. If you're interested, I can send you the modified version of the checklist I used. It was published ahead of time and the average comp score was about a 17/20 so the only people really hurt by the comp system were the people who ignored it outright.

"AFAIK they have removed the 40k approved stamp from FW units/models"

I have not seen that. It's in the last couple of books I have purchased. The newest has not arrived to my door yet but I understand it's there as well.

Did I miss something?

This is really good Reecius .

@Panzer Leader

Yeah, shoot it to me. Honestly, comp is low on the possibility list of what may come, but I am always open to new ideas.

We get really good variety in our events now and traditionally have had a really nice spread (for whatever reason) but what concerns me now is in "official 40K" getting the following:

Player 1: Tau Formation, IG Main, Wolf Allies, Inquisitor, Baneblade

vs.

Player 2: Dark Eldar/Eldar/Space Marine Formation/D Weapon firing Fortification/Data Slate character

Like, what game is that?! Haha, that boggles my mind!

@Dozer

Thanks! I think it will give us a decent indication of where the community is at at this point in time.

I cant even begin to wonder how you TOs will wrap your head around this TBH. So much stuff about how rules will iteract

That is why they are trying to hash this out now, to alleviate the stress of it by taking it out of their hands and putting it into the community's hands to see what they should start preparing for. It's brilliant.

Largo39 wrote:
Rules to tweak: [snip]
ICs with MCs: lets just stop this one, it really doesnt seem like what was intended, and is kind of silly. If the MC itself is itself IC then go for it, but otherwise no ICs with MCs.

Though I personally don't find it necessary, I'm sure others will mention joining IC's to Riptides so I want to make sure everyone is aware of this distinction - Joining an IC to a unit of multi-model MCs is 100% legal and listed in the BRB as a valid ability, so normal MC units (for example Canoptek Spyders) should not be touched by any changes. The contention with the Riptide is whether his ability to take drones makes him a multi-model unit, RAW it is until GW says otherwise so that's why it's been played that way so far. If players feel strongly that Riptides should not be able to join ICs, address that specifically but don't penalize other units of MCs in the process for doing something they were intended to do.

Again, I don't think this is a change that needs to be made. I just wanted to clarify it to other players who don't use multi-model MC units in their army.

@hotsauceman1

We'll work it out, but thanks for the sympathy! Haha, it is nice to hear that others aren't just demanding it the way they want it as often happens.

@Garner

You see right through our schemes! haha, but yes, that is the point. See what everyone is thinking and then give them that or very close to that. Democracy!

@morgendonner

I was just in conversation with a German tournament player and he said there, they require the Riptide to buy at least a single drone to be able to attach an IC to it, and their book has the same language ours does.

I think that is a pretty good idea, actually. At least require paying a tax to make it an actual unit for the IC, not just the potential of a unit.

Ahh, good call about the spyders, okay. I thought I could be broad there but i guess that's a "riptides only" rule.

I actually like the German idea there (and have thought that is how it should work myself).

The idea that a unit made up of 1 model in a list counts as not always one model because it could have (but did not) purchased additional models...always felt wrong to me.

If you did not buy that extra model that unit in your army is a unit that always consists of one model.

It also breaks down some of the riptide brokenness. (not really for Ovesa star), but for Ideas like joining a commander, a Bike Seer, and a Riptide, if you add a drone I believe it changes the majority toughness of the unit to 4 instead of 6, I think it may also impact things like majority weapon skill. Now the drone can be put out to die, but with only 1 that forces morale on the unit etc.

@ Reece & Breng - Mechanicon had that ruling as a requirement for joining ICs to Riptides. There was a bit of a problem where they didn't well advertise that ahead of time and many players were jaded because they didn't know (lucky me, I had a shielded missle drone anyway I4 Hit & Run punks!)

I'm ok with that call as long as it's being stated as something specific to Riptides and with the understanding that it is a rules tweak. You just have to make sure you then also make a ruling on what happens if in the course of the game the drone dies.

To use the example of spyders again, if only one spyder was still remaining, you would still have the ability to join an IC to it, so it's something to think about.

Again, I think this is not as high on the list of needed changes as 2+ rerollables, but if it's something people feel strongly about it's a pretty good clean solution / easy to implement.

Riptide shielded missile drones are t6 so it doesnt change the majority T if you take a shielded missile drone and a bikeseer you're still majority t6 on the riptide unit.

My contention is that if you force people to take drones on riptides in order to have ICs joined to them, the following units must also have multiple models in order to have characters joined.

broadsides
obliterators
crisis teams, including cirsis bodyguards
hive guard/zoanthropes/any other 1-3 tyranid medium bugs

Thats not an all inclusive list, but effectively you're saying that if a unit needs to have multiple models in the army list you take, you need to always take 2 crisis bodyguard to attach your commander to them...sounds pretty dumb right?

@Thread

I was just pointing out something I was told, not saying we were going to do it just to be clear.

@Morgendoner

Yeah, totally, it would have to be ultra clear well in advance and it would have to be thought through to even consider it. There's a lot of ripple effect with doing something like that.

@Thanatos67

Again, this is just talk not a plan.

But how do you correlate a unit to an MC? I could see the correlation to Carnifexes or Spyders as they are also MCs that can form a unit but the other examples you give are not.

I fully agree that any unit that can be taken as a single model must be taken as a suqad of at least 2 to be joined by an IC (except ICs because they have their own rules.)

So
Paladins
Hive Guard
Zoan Thropes
Crisis Teams
Broadsides
Carnifex
Riptide
Spiders
Oblits
Mutilators
etc...

Essentially you are correct I would word it as the "units that always consist of a single model" refers to in the army list. If you have a unit in your army that is "always a single model" for instance a single obliterator...it cannot be joined by an IC.

Reecius the rules that prevent the joining most MCs are rules about joining single model units...so in these terms there is no difference between an Oblit and a Carnifex.

@reece-not to derail the thread and absolutely not sarcastically meant but MC's are units, hence they have unit type: MC. Therefore if you have a rule change that units need to have multiple models in the list you're playing, I dont see why it would be exclusive to MCs and not all unit types. Theres a reason you can attach a tau commander to a solo broadside but you cant for example attach an independent character to mephiston. One is not a unit that always consists of a single model whereas one is. Similarly compare a riptide to a wraithknight. Both are MCs, but one is a unit that doesnt always consist of a single model. I'm saying the riptide is more like the broadside than the wraithknight for the purposes of attaching an IC. I acknowledge its not set in stone and we're just tossing things around right now but I wanted to provide my take on the matter. I definitely dont think it was intended to have the powercombo of a buff commander or bikeseer attached to a riptide, but there's a ton of stuff in 40k that exists that creates unintended consequences. Honestly, i dont understand why shielded missile drones exist other than to give you the allowance to attach a character to a riptide, as they're sort of a disadvantage otherwise.

Hope that helps clarify why i listed those units

@Breng77 and Thanatos67

Ah, I get you guys. It's the single model rule, I misunderstood the point you were driving at.

That makes sense and it is a fair application of what we're talking about. It is also why the Riptide can be joined by an IC in the first place! haha

Good example of unintended consequences and why I so wish GW wrote even half-assed decent rules. Crikey.

Riptides would just buy a missile drone in order to bypass said obstacle fyi.

Then they spent points on the drone, not saying it means it won't happen, but if they spend a few more points for it meh...

Unfortunately Reece I agree that this poll will be somewhat skewed due to you not being able to regulate your data sample. As well as some of this stuff like data slates being so new.

Having said that, I voted for Core Codices, Allies, Codex Supplements, Digital Codices, and Limited Data Slates (I'd prefer no formations).

I think it's quite important to note that the same number of people whom voted to include FW, also want Data Slates in one form or another (be it limited or total). 44 vs 43 respectively, as I type this.

By that number, I think a tournament allowing FW should allow data slates in some form. I think most people agree that single characters like Be'lakor are fine (certainly not any worse than a lot of FW stuff), but formations are much easier to abuse.

 RiTides wrote:
I don't think people selecting the top option are only picking it, but there's no way to know for sure of course. I don't think you can add it to the other categories, though, or it will double count in some cases. Likely would've been better without that choice, but I think folks are likely selecting more than just that.

Did anyone here Only select the top option and no other options?

I did and then wished I hadn't

Doesn't matter much though, I think this type of poll is too mushy. I am pretty sure codexes, allies and FW is pretty much on the table regardless, right? That is what was advertised. So now its a matter of deciding what else to include/exclude.

@WhiteDevil

True on the skewed results.

And I don't know if we can say for sure there is any correlation between Dataslates and FW. The numbers just coincide but some could have voted for one but not for the other.

@winterman

You see through my ruse! haha, but jokes aside, you are right. We are not changing the core of what we do, it's just going to be about any additional inclusions/exclusions.

I asked all the other questions just to see what people's feelings on those topics are at this point in time. Thought it would be interesting data.

In terms of inclusions/exclusions I would be for at least allowing data slates and/or formations in some form in addition to the standard LVO rules.

I have retyped this message several times now trying to find the right words, so let me just say this:

I think some form of theme/composition score could be the answer to your problem.

Sure, you can take elder/dark elder/ tau and inquisition in one list, but that theme/comp score will be way lower than the pure IG guy, or the CSM/CD guy. If this is a significant enough part of your tournament design it might discourage some of the crazier combos, but it still won't stop them all.

 extrenm(54) wrote:
I have retyped this message several times now trying to find the right words, so let me just say this:

I think some form of theme/composition score could be the answer to your problem.

Sure, you can take elder/dark elder/ tau and inquisition in one list, but that theme/comp score will be way lower than the pure IG guy, or the CSM/CD guy. If this is a significant enough part of your tournament design it might discourage some of the crazier combos, but it still won't stop them all.

If you HAVE to do comp, the best one I've heard was "Allies allowed, but Battle Brothers count as Allies of Convenience". This eliminates a lot of the broken ally combos.

You could also only allow one ally/detachment of any kind to the primary force.

@Whitedevil

A lot of folks want some of them but not all. That seems to be the prevailing sentiment.

@Extrenm(54)

Sorry if I missed a previous comment.

Comp, as you can see (and honestly, as I expected) is not very popular at all. Most folks here, and in our polls, strongly oppose it.

Can't we see how things shake out with Escalation and fortifications first before jumping off the deep end? I really do think allowing Escalation units, not necessarily taking them just allowing for their possibility, will stop the abusive non-interactive armies some people seem to be concerned with.

Remember how double FOC at 2K was the ruin of 40k and couldn't be allowed to live. It was beaten back with 1999+1 before birth. Now we have plenty of armies who ally with themselves and circumvent the 1999+1, except those armies that can't ally with themselves yet.

Give it a chance. There is no reason to fear complexity. It's a game.

@Darth

I agree. But, again, our big event is about 60 days away. Normally, 100%, I agree that it is wise to try it out, give it some time to settle in and then make a decision.

However, our phone is ringing every day, and my email inbox keeps filling up with: "what is being allowed in the LVO? Can I take my Baneblade? Can I take formations or Bel'Akor? Etc."

We don't have the luxury of time right now as people need time to adjust their plans to buy stuff, build it, paint it, play with it, etc. in preparation for an event. We can't just hit them with a huge change right before the event, you know? It wouldn't be fair.

I am going to play a few games using all the rules today, myself. We're going all in, too. Super Heavies, formations, etc. to see just how bananas it all actually is. Maybe it won't be that bad, after all.

As a player going to a tournament I would want very clear thought out reasons as to why you would ban specific things:

For instance, if you ban superheavies, why not ban the riptide broadside dataslate too? Or the inquisitor slot? To ban anything becomes a fairly slippery slope, so dress accordingly.

It is because of that, I voted that everything HAS to stay. I don't particularly like it, and I personally would hate playing games against some of the scary lists someone can build from this mess, but at the same time I can't justify why something should be out and something should be in. The riptide dataslate can be broken or it can be fluffy (or both). I also cant justify that some superheavies are going to break the game either, as there has been multiple threads about how the baneblade is just not as good as some of the regular units out there.

Its really thinking about this stuff that I miss 5th ed. GOOD LUCK!!!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I voted. Though you did leave out the restricted FW option which I would have selected. As it was I did not vote for FW as unrestricted FW isn't my personal preference.

I voted for all codices, allies, digital codices, and supplements. And I should have added limited data slates for individual units being added like Belakor.

I voted for limited rules adjustment. Basically for the 2+ Re-rollable. My vote for how to change that would be that any save reroll cannot be better than 3+. Example, Screamerstar would save on a 2++ and if failed would save on a 3++ on the re-roll.

I voted, and agree 95% with Brad's sentiment.

Fine with codices / allies / digital codices / supplements.

Not a big fan of formations. Definitely not a fan of super heavy bs, like Str D Hellstorm Template C'tans. Forgeworld I'm iffy on, but I could go either way on it, as long as it was restricted like brad said.

Data slates depends. Fine with models like Belakor. Not really fine with the Tau/SM "Formation" crap.

Oh, and, I also agree with the 2+ rerollable being adjusted somehow, though I've no idea how to properly do so.

My two cents.

Personally, I like the idea of two tournaments.

One can be 'Ard Boyz style. No holds barred, no painting, no comp, no sportsmenship, if its in a rule book or FAQ it is perfectly legal.

The second tournament can be a true RTT. This tournament will have painting scores, comp, sportsmenship, and all that other jazz people complain about.

Since I did click comp scores and I feel that two separate tournaments should be played, I think players should only be docked points based on repatitive items other than those listed as troops and if you choose allies that do not trust each other or have some animosity towards one another.

Great topic and great discussion.

For me the problem is not with GW or with what to allow and what not to allow. The problem is us. We are trying to make a rule set do things that it was never intended to do. You are looking for balance for competition when tournament players by their very nature look to unbalance it in their favor. This rule set was never designed to do things tournament players want it to do. You all (TO's) have done a masterful job with what you all have had to work with. My hat is off to you. But with the way they are putting stuff out and the way they are writing the rules it is going to be nigh impossible to keep up with. I played in the ATC. I was charged with facing Tau and TauDar on a regular basis and it sucked. Sucked so bad I do want to play that way anymore. It is not a knock against the guys that brought it. It is a knock against the rules for those craptastic combos. Warhammer 40k 6th Edition was never meant for the format of competitive tournament play. GW puts this stuff out and messes with the game for tournament players. It makes it too hard for TO's and TP's to adapt.

My suggestion for the fix. Regulate things through the missions. An example was in Adepticons Gladiator; they have a mission that gives each army a vortex grenade. It allows some armies to fight better against those that have super heavies when they don't. It interjected something to allow for some parity. Instead of using fast attack or heavies for scoring make that one that allows for elites. Do some things like this and see if it helps. Again a suggestion for a line of thinking not the permanent solution.

Just my two cents.

Personally, as long as these combos exist I won't be doing any of the big tourneys. I play in these things for fun and those lists are not fun. Good luck with your poll and your decision making. I wish you the best of luck. I will also say the NOVA's bracketing system I think helps with this as the brackets set themselves you then play against guys in your bracket who are not so far off on things as you are. If I do a big one next year it will be NOVA for this reason alone. Best chance of lots of fun games with players that are on my level.

Reading over this thread and some others, different types of events may be a good idea, particularly if two or three different popular opinions or "groups" emerge.


As noted earlier by Pleasantnoodles, one could do a varying number of events, here's another idea of a breakdown that could give some other ideas:

"Spartan": Core Codex+BRB only (no Supplements, FW, Allies, subfactions, superheavies, etc)

"Limited": Anything that doesn't mess with FoC's (all codex books, FW, sub-faction supplements, etc but no allies/formations/superheavies/fortifications, etc.)

"Standard" As limited but with Allies and a Fortification slot, basically what would have encompassed the widest definition of "normal" 40k until recently. (all codex books, FW, sub-faction Supplements, allies, 1 fortification).

"Open": Anything GW makes for normal play (Codex books, FW, Supplements, Allies, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Formations, etc)

@ Reecius

What ever you do please post it before Christmas as most of us east coasters need to time to prepare and sort out the army and then pack it all.

@Thread

We're trying out a game with Jy2 and Spam Adams using Formations, Super Heavies with D weapons and what not....HAHAHAHA

I will let the incoming Video Bat Rep tell the story, I really don't need to say anything

LVO attendee Poll will be going out tonight after that video!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@TheJugHead

Totally understand, that is why we are rushing this. We will have decisions made by the end of next week, count on it.

The phones been ringing all day with the same questions, haha.

boyd wrote:
Personally, I like the idea of two tournaments.

One can be 'Ard Boyz style. No holds barred, no painting, no comp, no sportsmenship, if its in a rule book or FAQ it is perfectly legal.

The second tournament can be a true RTT. This tournament will have painting scores, comp, sportsmenship, and all that other jazz people complain about.

Since I did click comp scores and I feel that two separate tournaments should be played, I think players should only be docked points based on repatitive items other than those listed as troops and if you choose allies that do not trust each other or have some animosity towards one another.

I don't attend tournaments because they don't go for these things. I also voted comp an separate tournaments. If I saw a solid comp system for a tourney I'd be all over it every year.

Sounds like a Softcore Tourn and Hardcore Tourn separation doesn't look too bad...

By the way, i think that the people who are voting against digital arent against all digital stuff, just thr stuff thats only available digitally.

Just a note - have any of you tried to teach a new player the game recently?

My wife has been trying to learn the game in time for the LVO. At this point, I'm tempted to say "hell with it" and pick up Malifaux instead. 2 months is plenty of time to learn & paint that.

I can't keep up with 40k "rules" right now even if I wanted to.

Edit: Here's a question, and I don't actually know the answer (I've not been paying much attention to 40k since September): how many of the silly-broken aspects of formations/dataslates/etc. rely upon Battle Brothers status? Would just dropping the Allies matrix, in favor of "everyone is a Desperate Ally of everyone else," clear up most of it?

 Janthkin wrote:

I can't keep up with 40k "rules" right now even if I wanted to.

The complexity is only growing the more GW sutures onto the original game. Worse is that much of that extra stuff is digital only and is becoming increasingly hard for the average person to keep up (with time and money a factor in that curve).

I've not seen a game system explode with so much content before in so short a time.

If you ban BB as an ally you're penalizing certain armies that aren't abusive. Why ruin it for everyone?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you ban BB as an ally you're penalizing certain armies that aren't abusive. Why ruin it for everyone?

I can't think of any BB that are taken that aren't abusive.

So BA and UM can't attach IC's to each other. So what.

Tau should never be allowed to have psychic powers cast on them. Nor should they be allowed to have superior psychic defenses through an attached Farseer.

BB is one of the most abused feature of 6th edition. No army is remotely affected by removing it, except for abusive lists.

Reece,

I know you've already realized a few of the flaws of the way you asked particular questions in this poll, but I'd reiterate to be wary about figuring out what percentage of people are voting for what based on this poll. Because, for example, the 'two different tournaments' option should not be included in this poll. Whether or not you should run separate tournaments should be a RESULT from the data collected, NOT an actual choice. Because most players believe that they have a pretty good handle on how things 'should' be fixed (from their point of view), so they don't necessarily see the need for separate tournaments because they think most people would agree with their opinion if only they heard it.

Oh, and thanks to seeing this poll we'll get a 'total unique voters' count added to our Dakka polls that allow multiple votes (so in the future it will be easier to figure out percentages based on how many actual voters participated in the thread)...so thanks for that!


----


My personal 2 cents:

I vote for having two tournaments. One is completely unbridled, unless there is something that pretty much universally everyone agrees is utterly impossible to allow (like Super-heavies via Escalation).

The second event I would vote for removing allies, for the reason that it breaks alot of the crazy combos and brings army list construction back towards the general canon of the 40k universe. On top of that, you should also make any rules changes you see fit to bust combos that exist within a single codex that create unfun situations (such as re-rollable 2++ saves). In this 2nd event, I really think your own judgement can just be used as much as you see fit as the other unfettered event remains for those who don't like the restrictions you put into place.

Whether or not you allow any forgeworld, dataslates, etc, into the restricted event would be entirely up to you. So you could even choose to ban particular FW units you think are broken and allow the remaining FW units, for example.

I like "everything goes" and "no allies" as two different but equal events.

I think the game is better balanced with no allies as the new codexes seem to have good internal balance. I see no evidence that the ally matrix is balanced, fair or new codexes are explicitly designed with them in mind in regards to balance.

Allies was a disaster in 6th. I think they needed to put more thought into the design and balance. I would have rather seen "hybrid" units which plug into multiple armies which grants limited and balanced allies. But it is too late now!

Common consensus seems to be that Screamerstar is the second most abusive and horrible list in 40K, and it entirely relies on units from a single standard codex. Removing battle brothers would damage Seerstars and Taudar, but that will just leave the screamers alone as the most powerful option. Does setting tournaments up to be all one abusive army at the top help things? Or wouldn't that be an even worse situation than we have now where there are at least a variety of broken and despised options?

Screamerstar is a response to Taudar. It can be tarpited and ignored. Taudar does very well against the types of armies that can tarpit Screamerstar away. So yes removing BB will diminish the power of Screamerstar, indirectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it's not only Tauda and Jetseer that gets hampered by removing BB. It also prevents the ridiculous allying a codex with its supplement so Tau-Farsight could not ally together to effectively increase the FOC slots for that army. It's giving armies access to increased FOC selections while denying them to most everyone else.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Reading over this thread and some others, different types of events may be a good idea, particularly if two or three different popular opinions or "groups" emerge.


As noted earlier by Pleasantnoodles, one could do a varying number of events, here's another idea of a breakdown that could give some other ideas:

"Spartan": Core Codex+BRB only (no Supplements, FW, Allies, subfactions, superheavies, etc)

"Limited": Anything that doesn't mess with FoC's (all codex books, FW, sub-faction supplements, etc but no allies/formations/superheavies/fortifications, etc.)

"Standard" As limited but with Allies and a Fortification slot, basically what would have encompassed the widest definition of "normal" 40k until recently. (all codex books, FW, sub-faction Supplements, allies, 1 fortification).

"Open": Anything GW makes for normal play (Codex books, FW, Supplements, Allies, Escalation, Stronghold Assault, Formations, etc)

Not voting since I rarely play tournaments - but I like this idea a lot and I think that it might also make more people interested in events. They could pick and choose what they enjoy playing. However, I can also imagine this causing a huge amount of work for TO's.

 yakface wrote:

My personal 2 cents:

I vote for having two tournaments. One is completely unbridled, unless there is something that pretty much universally everyone agrees is utterly impossible to allow (like Super-heavies via Escalation).

The second event I would vote for removing allies, for the reason that it breaks alot of the crazy combos and brings army list construction back towards the general canon of the 40k universe. On top of that, you should also make any rules changes you see fit to bust combos that exist within a single codex that create unfun situations (such as re-rollable 2++ saves). In this 2nd event, I really think your own judgement can just be used as much as you see fit as the other unfettered event remains for those who don't like the restrictions you put into place.

Whether or not you allow any forgeworld, dataslates, etc, into the restricted event would be entirely up to you. So you could even choose to ban particular FW units you think are broken and allow the remaining FW units, for example.

Pretty much my exact feelings. Scoring them differently might be a good idea too with only battle points in the unbridled tournament and sports/paint/battle for the no allies event.

@Thread

Again, thanks for all the awesome feedback, everyone! Really helps to sort this stuff out.

So, after 3 days of non-stop thinking about this and communication a plan is starting to form in my mind as to how to handle this craziness!

I am going to wait for the LVO poll results but based on those we have a few different contingency plans laid out as to how to react to what our players want. I feel confident that this will all be no big deal.

But, after seeing D Weapons in action in normal 40K? You had better be prepared for what is coming and enjoy that style play. If you show up at a tournament and get the D, you are going to be royally pissed off and not enjoy your game in the slightest. I am uploading the video bat rep as I type this, it is almost done rendering.

@Carl

You said it. That is in theory a sweet option but in practice it creates logistical headaches.

More staff
More prizes
More admin
More of everything, really.

@Yak

Yeah I biffed the questions a bit, no doubt. But, the data still gives us some good indicators. Not as tight as I wanted, but I learned what not to do in the future so fair play.

You may be on the right track with the dual event format. It would be tough to pull off logistically as people are not expecting that at this point, but I think that if our poll data reflects a strong divide between the "all in" and restricted crowd, we may have to go for it.

I was thinking we could do:

40K Unleashed!
All in, everyting legal goes. Be prepared for what is coming!

40K Tactical!
Restrictions based on player feedback.

What do you guys think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, that would only be if the LVO Poll results reflect a strong divide, not a definite plan.

 Reecius wrote:
@Yak

Yeah I biffed the questions a bit, no doubt. But, the data still gives us some good indicators. Not as tight as I wanted, but I learned what not to do in the future so fair play.

You may be on the right track with the dual event format. It would be tough to pull off logistically as people are not expecting that at this point, but I think that if our poll data reflects a strong divide between the "all in" and restricted crowd, we may have to go for it.

I was thinking we could do:

40K Unleashed!
All in, everyting legal goes. Be prepared for what is coming!

40K Tactical!
Restrictions based on player feedback.

What do you guys think?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And again, that would only be if the LVO Poll results reflect a strong divide, not a definite plan.

As I said to you via email, the dual event maybe is something you just look to add into the BAO and next LVO, as opposed to trying to make it happen for this year. For this year, you probably just want to ban Escalation (depending on what the actual rules are) and just let everything else play out as the crazy cluster-$#$@ that GW intends.

Oh, and those tournament names are dangerous, as it implies that the event you're putting restrictions on is more 'tactical', which is going to anger the people who feel that the unrestricted one is the 'real' 40k. I think the restricted tournament should be called something more like 'traditional' 40k or even 'restricted' 40k.

You definitely want the restricted one to have the more 'negative' sounding name, if that makes sense, so that the people playing in the 'unleashed' one don't feel like they're the ones not playing 'real' 40k anymore.

Yeah, folks are very sensitive to the names, no joke. We'll see what the LVO poll gives us. It may not even be necessary.

But, here's a quick and dirty video bat rep with the new hotness!

In this test game, Jy2 busts out Be'Lakor and an FMC/Soulgrinder Daemon/CSM list against an insane Mash-up list Spam Adam pilots that consists of Eldar/Dark Eldar/Tau and a Revenant Titan! Under current 40K rules, all of this stuff is legal for "standard" games. Would you want to play games like this in a tournament or no?

6th edition already wasn't any fun to play. This gak just looks completely pointless now, one unit can just wipe whole swathes of gak off the board on the first turn, before they even get to do anything.

The only fun had in the video was laughing at how fething stupid this bs is and illustrating how much of a waste of time playing a game is now.

Good luck Reecius, you're going to need it. = \

I understand the frustation all too well, trust me. GW is taking a dump on us with this crap, IMO.

But, I still love this game, I still really love this community and I still love tournaments and conventions.

We can find a way to make it work and still be a fun, fair, competitive event. I just think this illustrates that playing unmodified 40K is not the way to do it as a general guideline. For a specialized type of tournament? Sure. But not as a general rule of thumb, IMO.

Taking a dump on you?

That's ridiculous! Remember the threads trying to decide whether to lower points totals or add time to each round?

They just solved those problems in one fell swoop. 7 round tournament wrapped up in 3 hours or so.

Thanks GW!

The more I read these threads the more I am convinced that two things need to change.

Fix the 2++ rerollable to a 2+4+ rerollable.

Second no allies. I like allies because I want to run Salamanders and Iron Hands or Salamanders and White Scars but some of the combos available are just too over the top.

My two cents

I say play it all and drop the points down to 1500 and be done with it.

My second choice and the one I think is growing in consensuses is simple...

Ban Battle Brothers & Don't allow Escalation and the game is vastly more "balanced".

LVO Poll out!

@Eldarian

Games indeed do go very, very fast now!

@Overwatch

Vote in the poll, my friend!

@Tastey

It's pretty gnar gnar to have the D weapons in the game. I don't know if that is a good choice, honestly. In fact, I am pretty strongly against it.

Time will tell, but in the limited amount of time we've had to try it out, it is straight up Captain Insane-O.

As for D-weapons, you should play the game again with the titan facing off against a dedicated titan-killing army (pods full of melta sternguard, etc) and see how much fun anyone has when the titan explodes on turn 1 before getting even a single shot off.

 Reecius wrote:
LVO Poll out!

@Eldarian

Games indeed do go very, very fast now!

@Overwatch

Vote in the poll, my friend!

@Tastey

It's pretty gnar gnar to have the D weapons in the game. I don't know if that is a good choice, honestly. In fact, I am pretty strongly against it.

Time will tell, but in the limited amount of time we've had to try it out, it is straight up Captain Insane-O.

So their is only what two Lords of War that have ranged shooting D weapons right? Two that have template D weapons?

Eldar Titan being the most abusive, but as I see it it cannot hurt flying monstrous creatures, so just throw one of them at it in assault and watch it be ground to dust. Now Correct me if I am wrong, but you can still Look out sir any D-hits? So your characters are sorta safe. It will have most likely have to use both D-weapons to kill a single monstrous creature. My only question, is since I don't have a book did it end up being true they reduced the cost of the Lords of War? If not 900 points used in a 1500 point game leaves you with what?

Worse comes to worse I throw 50 man blog squad at it and see if it can Smash its way throw that many models, with Azeral 4+ invul. I take Belekor and Black Legion flying Eternal Warrior prince and go to town. It cannot hurt flyers either. That is just thinking about the problem for like 10 mins. Frankly, I am more concerned facing a Shadowsword more than the Titan. NO doubt this hurts Death Stars, but it takes cares of a lot of problems and replaces it with only one. I also don't know what extra Warlord Traits you get if you do not take a Super-Heavy?

Now if the costs are reduced we have a serious problem, but I cannot find any real answer to that yet.

@Peregrine

Sure, a list tailored to beat it will do better, no doubt. But the objective was to show a normal tournament list against what can come and see what happened.

This is a situation you could find yourself in in a tournament.

@Tastey

We did throw an FMC against it and it got Stomped to death in one round of combat =(

Read the Stomp rules if you have not, yet.

A good player can bubble wrap it to prevent assault, too.

Now, I am not saying it is unbeatable, but it is so incredibly powerful. You get no saves (and yes, I think LoS! still works, but we were picking up units at a time).

We'll keep trying it but be sure if this Titan is best (which we think it is) it is the one you will be seeing.

With 600 points what are they are going to bubble wrap with? Even if you do bubble wrap it, it will be so thin one template should poke a hole right through.

I know about Stomp I thought I didn't work against Flying monstrous creatures (I don't play Apoc), even if it does so now you bring both FMC at opposite ends of the model meaning it can only stomp one FMC at a time? It needs a 6 to kill the FMC on one die. It can only kill two vehicles at a time, it sucks if you run a LR list or take other spendy tanks, but if a 900 point unit cannot destroy 250 point unit we have problems in the opposite direction. Sure it can kill models, but the blob units in the game are currently killed in similar ways. For 510 points I can take 3 Heldrakes and they are immune to this thing. I am sure you can think of something, but what combination of 600 points you have left over after spending for a Titan can handle 3 Drakes? What Scoring unit will survive? Here is a five second example I created.

1500 Pts - Codex: Black Legion Roster - 1500 to Prove a Point

Total Roster Cost: 1498

HQ: Typhus (1#, 230 pts)
1 Typhus, 230 pts

HQ: Daemon Prince (1#, 350 pts)
1 Daemon Prince, 310 pts = (base cost 145 + Power Armour 20 + Wings 40 + Increase Mastery Level x3 75 + Daemon of Nurgle 15 + Spell Familiar 15)
1 The Skull of Ker'ngar, 40 pts

Troops: Plague Zombies (32#, 138 pts)
31 Plague Zombies, 124 pts = 31 * 4
1 Plague Zombie Champion, 14 pts

Troops: Plague Zombies (20#, 90 pts)
19 Plague Zombies, 76 pts = 19 * 4
1 Plague Zombie Champion, 14 pts

Troops: Plague Zombies (20#, 90 pts)
19 Plague Zombies, 76 pts = 19 * 4
1 Plague Zombie Champion, 14 pts

Troops: Plague Zombies (20#, 90 pts)
19 Plague Zombies, 76 pts = 19 * 4
1 Plague Zombie Champion, 14 pts

Fast Attack: Heldrake (1#, 170 pts)
1 Heldrake, 170 pts

Fast Attack: Heldrake (1#, 170 pts)
1 Heldrake, 170 pts

Fast Attack: Heldrake (1#, 170 pts)
1 Heldrake, 170 pts

My point is without getting into list hammering for about 5 pages is, with all this variety their is a counter to everything. Now the problem with 6th for Tournaments is with so much choice it means bad match ups can rule the day and when you have to think about the majority of causual Tournament participants that just want fun games, it is a hard struggle one I don't envy you being in.

Hey, I am not trying to say it is one thing or another really, just saying our first go with it (rushed and with probably some rules messed up) was not fun.

In time, it could be fine but we're under the gun to get this information out and a decision made ASAP so people can plan for our event, you know?

I wish we had more time but we had to rush into showing as much information as we could and then asking for feedback.

If it turns out it is no big deal after all we can adjust for the future but people need answers now to build their armies.

 Reecius wrote:
Sure, a list tailored to beat it will do better, no doubt. But the objective was to show a normal tournament list against what can come and see what happened.

This is a situation you could find yourself in in a tournament.

Well, a normal tournament list that was written when "normal tournament" didn't include D-weapon titans. Now the metagame is going to shift to lists that can handle titans.

Though in the end I'm agreeing with you that the titan isn't fun. It produces a very black and white game where either you handle the titan easily (probably including a turn 1 kill) and crush the few supporting units that remain, or you aren't prepared to face the titan and you get tabled by it. Neither situation is a very fun game, and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground where the titan lives long enough to be an interesting strategic factor, but isn't completely overwhelming.

 tastytaste wrote:
It can only kill two vehicles at a time, it sucks if you run a LR list or take other spendy tanks, but if a 900 point unit cannot destroy 250 point unit we have problems in the opposite direction. Sure it can kill models, but the blob units in the game are currently killed in similar ways.

Of course a 900 point model should be able to kill a 250 point unit. The problem here is that the 900 point model can kill 2 250 point models per turn without breaking a sweat. And its not like he's limited to obliterating just vehicles, as the D-weapon rules means he can kill pretty much everything near instantly unless it is swooping/zooming.

Although on the concept of coming up with potential limitations, I do wonder how the Lord of War rules would work in a tournament if you just didn't allow D-weapons...it might actually be okay.

Strength D weapons in competitive play seem like an obvious non-starter. That said, I don't think the concept of superheavies is fundamentally bad or anything. Without strength D, I think they have a lot of potential.

I voted for everything. I like the idea of Escalation. If anything were to be banned though, I think it should be D Strength weapons. They are excessively powerful and are, in my opinion, unfair and unfun.

EDIT: I agree with Kingsley and yakface.

As a player I can plan on dealing with a lot of problems.
- I can plan on dealing with 6-8 wave serpents.
- I can plan on dealing with seer councils by playing to the mission
- I can plan on dealing with tau buff commanders joined to riptides.
The only thing you can do against the tau dataslate is plan on taking your models off the table. That needs to be banned.

Let me show you what you can build for 1850. You could also swap out the inquisitor for eldar so you can have them join riptides.
25 - Inquisitor
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters)
- That's 72 twin linked tank hunter STR 7 shots
- That's 72 twin linked, tank hunter, ignore cover, homing STR 5 shots
- That's 3 STR 8 AP2 large blast templates

I'll be honest. I have zero interest in spending money on a plane ticket and hotel room to fly out and see my opponent bring that list. I might as well just lay out my army on a nice new megamat then put them back into their tablewar cases. Its the same enjoyment.

I think I'm ok with Escalation. S10ap1 no invulnerable/cover 10" templates = goodbye deathstars. When 6th hit, I didn't break apart my meltagun guys, just put them on the shelf somewhere and told them it was time for a nap. 2++ reroll? Who cares.

D6 Scatter = Oblits in your rear armour.

@Reece and labmouse: Single Force Org limits those stupid nonsense armies. It also still lets people take at least one or two or whatever of whatever model they want.

New list quickly thought up for 'new' 40k

CCS with missile launcher

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Platoon
PCS with lascannon
5 infantry blobs all with lascannons

Vendetta

Super heavy with volcano d weapon. (shadow sword is it?)

Dont blob up, have 18 small units all with lascannons and d weapon. Against another super heavy that should really put the hurt on it in one turn then score objectives and win the game.

If 40k goes like this I am done with it.

Great video. Next can we see a 5th edition list against a 6th edition list then bemoan the fact the 5th edition list will have to undergo a sea of changes to be competitive.

I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

Agree with hulk on all points.

If you don't want to ban formations, make them 1 per player and/or make them your only allowed allied detachment.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

This.

Plus I voted in the LVO poll this morning. If you got the email vote soon so the decisions can be made!

I'd like to see what a "titan-killer" list looks like, considering there are several armies in 40k that can barely handle AV14 reliably (if at all), let alone super heavy vehicles and titans. I imagine it would be very hard to build a list that could handle a titan that doesn't abuse the rules quite a bit itself by using allies, formations etc., that's also balanced enough to handle any other list you could face. Personally I'm not convinced titans and crap can be dealt with without either bringing one of your own (which makes "Escalation" quite the appropriate name) or being so highly specialized against them that you're automatically fethed against anything else. And you can't "just ignore" something wiping multiple units off the table, from anywhere on the table, every single turn, either.

I also think the idea that "Anything is balanced as long as it costs crap tons of points!" is really...I can't really think of a word to properly describe the extent of just how "silly" that is, honestly. It doesn't matter if it costs 1,000 points or more, being able to erase half an army per turn from practically anywhere on the table because you have the range and the height to see over everything, and being resilient enough to resist incoming firepower from whatever is left while it continues to systematically destroy everything is fething insane, and CAN NEVER BE BALANCED. Hell, a model like that could realistically be someone's entire army, so even if it costs as much as one who cares? That's why crap like this was always treated as purely optional and never saw play outside of Apocalypse or the rare, stupid, super-casual game where everyone just throws their hands up and says "I wanna see what the titan does!" (and then they never play with it again), because they quickly find out those games aren't really fun. It's not fun being on the other end of it and it's going to get really old really quick being the guy inflicting that crap on other people.

Titans are cool to look at, but sadly that's about the only good thing going for them. They're hilariously expensive and so long as GW proves to be incapable of producing balanced rules for them, they have no place in a game of 40k, competitive or not. They're not fun to play with or against, and I'm sure even the most super-casual, die-hard fanboy would agree with me after watching his carefully painted and arranged models get erased by the handful every turn, every game, without being able to do anything about it.

If only GW made another game, maybe one at a smaller scale than 40k, where units like titans and super heavies are not only common place but the game is purposely designed and balanced with them in mind from day one, and every army has access to them. Being at a smaller scale would also make them affordable as opposed to the 40k-scale wallet warrior nonsense that FW delivers. Not sure what GW could call that game, but it sounds really epic in scale, and something I wouldn't mind building an army for myself if it were supported.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

But we had justification for treating it differently before: it was an expansion, it was something that existed outside of "standard" 40k and was presented as optional rules for games. It was all pretty cut and dry for the most part. Supplements aren't the same beast at all and banning their use in certain cases and not others is harder to justify. The company is telling us that for all intents and purposes this is all "standard", they're not optional rules that we can choose to use or ignore at our leisure, and they're really no different from people using the different codexes. So by ignoring Escalation and anything else labeled "supplement" or the new dataslates and other digital-only products, you're no longer playing "standard" 40k, you're playing a heavily comped/house-ruled version of it where literally every event will be different depending on the personal opinion of whoever is running it. It's not as fair and unbiased as it was before with "rulebook and codex" (IA books were always labeled expansions so I still don't consider them standard, but feth it, we have bigger problems than FW now).

 Hulksmash wrote:
Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

So ban the Tau formation but not Be'lakor? Why? Be'lakor is broken, too, the rules cost the same, and GW has said they're both 100% official and part of standard 40k. If that's the case then I think all the dataslates should be banned just to make it all even, and Codex: Inquisition should be banned too, because I don't think it's fair for every Imperial army to get access to a third ally that doesn't count as their detachment when every other army only gets one and I'm not allowed a formation.

Ban allies too, while you're at it. Like others have said, it would be good to see "real" armies again, and not these awful-looking mash-ups of 3+ different books all painted in different colors that don't even look like a cohesive force or make sense in the game's fluff.

My suggestion=Let's make some lemonade out of GW's lemons. Unpopular items include The Relic, allies, digital supplements, digital codices, and data slates.

Modified rules for the relic by adding 2 more rules to the relic: The weakest link and the relic is mine. Only 1 army gets to take home the relic, and their allies fight and die so that they can possess it. Can you really trust them, or do they plan on stealing or claiming legal ownership of the relic for themselves?

The weakest link: All allies are immediately downgraded in the matrix to the worst possible combination found within the matrix. Examples Eldar allied with DE and a inquisition=Everyone is desperate allies with each other because inquisition and DE are desperate allies.

No the relic is mine: At the start of a players turn every detachment must have the model closest the relic make a leadership test if it's within 12" of the relic. If the any of the tests are failed the alliance downgrades 1 tier until the start of the player's next turn. IC joined to a battle brother squad turned AoC are kicked out of the squad. If the alliance downgrades to come the apocalypse treat it as desperate allies except the range of one eye open is extended out to 12" Vehicles and models without a LD score are LD10. Example: An IG squad with an AS and Inquisition character attached to the squad are all within 12" of the relic, three leadership tests must be passed to not have the alliance downgrade to allies of convenience.

That shuts down a lot of shenanigans and overly complicated lists with 3 or more detachments. It would also make the relic really interesting, and give a boost to pure 1 codex armies.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If you ban BB as an ally you're penalizing certain armies that aren't abusive. Why ruin it for everyone?

I can't think of any BB that are taken that aren't abusive.

So BA and UM can't attach IC's to each other. So what.

Tau should never be allowed to have psychic powers cast on them. Nor should they be allowed to have superior psychic defenses through an attached Farseer.

BB is one of the most abused feature of 6th edition. No army is remotely affected by removing it, except for abusive lists.

+1 darth

I do agree with downgrading BB to AOC, I have said it before and will say it again. Currently in the UK we have had a highlander style tourny with BB down to AoC just finished and that was a good sucess so hoping to see more next year.

I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

I don't think this is a bad starting point. Formations and Escalation seem to have no place in a "balanced" game. It also seems like lots of players are against these.

As for the 2++ re-roll, I think the best way to address it may be to simply say:

-Fortune negates a failed save on a roll of 4+
-The Grimiore only affects a Daemon's base invulnerable save.

That means that units which really aren't a problem (random Precog Terminator Libby, Laughing Autarch, and even to an extent a Grimiored Fateweaver) are left un-altered. However, the two main offenders (Seers/Screamers) are brought back to a more reasonable level.

I'd play that game with little to no complaints. It is probably worth seeing what the new Nid SOTW is before messing with 2+ re-rollable quite yet.

MarkyMark wrote:
I do agree with downgrading BB to AOC, I have said it before and will say it again. Currently in the UK we have had a highlander style tourny with BB down to AoC just finished and that was a good sucess so hoping to see more next year.

Glad to hear that MM. Were there other restrictions ? Was Dep Allies upgraded to AoC or just BB ? Any insights to what lists were at the top and how Screamer/seer stars performed ? Im sure they were still up there but was it a bit more tolerable ? I would also be interested in what the average player thought ?

Right now if i was getting ready to run a Tournament my gut would be to:

Standard FoC w/ allies
Allow digital codexes and suppliments
not allow formations and escalation
- Take a hard look at Lowering BB to AoC
- 2++ would stay for now

Thats my present stance.

It was highlander so no screamerstars (plus I didnt make it ). Sadly the warhammer forum is down and cannot remember any other details, when it is back up I will add the other restrictions as there were a few.

I have spoken to a few of the bigger UK TO's and they have already been thinking of changing things in the tournies, some have pretty much already decided to ban these two supps, even if the Fortifications adds in some interesting building rules (which would be hard to add into a house FAQ).

How many tournies in the US have been won by screamerstar and seer council?.

 Sidstyler wrote:
...The company is telling us that for all intents and purposes this is all "standard", they're not optional rules that we can choose to use or ignore at our leisure...

Um, while they're certainly promoting these new books as standard, 'the company' tells us that all of their rules are optional and can be used or ignored at our leisure.



Even without that, I would have absolutely zero problem with a TO picking and choosing which supplements to allow, or cherry-picking parts of certain supplements, in the interests of keeping a tournament functional and fair.

Just about 70 votes on the LVO Poll in already! Woot! Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

Today we will be posting a Video Bat Rep with 2 Super Heavies, no Dirty D's allowed!

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

There should just be an "I agree with Hulk" poll option. The goal should be to keep hardcore tournament goers happy enough while increasing the buy-in from inexperienced tournament players. I think his suggestions would do exactly that. If, in six months or a year, it turns out that Escalation isn't as damaging as we suspect it is, this can be amended, but erring on the side of caution here seems pretty wise.

 Reecius wrote:

I was thinking we could do:

40K Unleashed!
All in, everyting legal goes. Be prepared for what is coming!

40K Tactical!
Restrictions based on player feedback.

What do you guys think?

I personally love this - but if I am being honest here, the tournament community is much more likely to go with your 40k Tactical option. The 40k Unleashed! option is likely to be a second type of format more akin to the 40k Friendly (at Adepticon)... or actually more like the 40k Gladiator event. I doubt it would be the "premiere" event. Again - I think people are WAY over reacting to this rules supplement.

I am glad they keep it as a separate rule book - it makes it very easy to just say "We aren't playing with escalation" and move on.

I am truly saddened by how cynical it seems a loud part of the community has become. Take the game and make it your own. GW has been advocating this for a LONG time now.

Take a breath. It's just a game. As far as tournaments go - TO's will make some choices and then you vote with your wallets/attendance.


Also - Cross Posted from the 40k General forum:

From the GW Digital Editions Facebook Page:

Question:

Bjørn Berg Olsen Please tell me Escalation requires consent?

Answered:

Games Workshop: Digital Editions Hi Bjørn,
As with all our rules, they are as official as you decide to make them.

The intent is that they be used in regular games of Warhammer 40,000, but I'd hope no-one is going to force you to play a game you don't want to.

- Eddie

Of course this will be debated and argued about forever anyway....

 morgendonner wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

It is a little disappointing Brad doesn't run tournaments of his own! Get on that buddy it's not like your busy or anything, only Californians are busy

This is why I attend every event I can that Reece runs. I trust him to make well thought out decisions and run a tight ship. And if something goes wrong he gives out beer.

As someone who is decidedly middle of the road at major GTs, my best finish ever was seventh every other finish has been somewhere near the bottom of the top 1/3, I appreciate that a top player like Hulk is watching out for ways to make the game fun and sustainable for those players who rarely if ever are in contention. Which is honestly 80-90% of the GT.

 morgendonner wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

99% agree with Hulksmash. I think the answer should be no, unless the TO makes a specific permissive exception in a pre tournament FAQ. Belakor is cool, but the fireblade is total bs. GW jumped the shark and is releasing massive amounts of crap without vetting it. Throw the baby out with the bath water to be on the safe side, and if you decide the baby is cute pick the baby back up again and keep it.

I do not see the point of these allow or disallow posts. It is not like expansions for 40k are a new thing.

Was there a big freak out when these came out?
-Planet Strike
-Cities of Death
-Death From the Skies
- Spearhead

They provide us as players with new ways to enjoy our hobby. Why then is this craze going on now? This mass panic? Baffles me. Each of the Expansions is a similar but separate animal than the original.

At no time before was there a mass hysteria about the expansion ruining the tournament setting. Why? Because it was an expansion.

I do not see why Escalation and Strong hold assault are any different.


Digital content .. now there is something I can see discussing. Because as far as I know the digital items are not clearly marked as expansions or as extensions of the general rules and/or codexs.

 Prophet40k wrote:
I do not see why Escalation and Strong hold assault are any different.

The difference is that Escalation and SH are not expansions.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Let me show you what you can build for 1850. You could also swap out the inquisitor for eldar so you can have them join riptides.
25 - Inquisitor
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
12 - 3 henchmen acolytes
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters) + marker light drone
570 - 6 broadsides + riptide (with early warning override, retro thrusters)
- That's 72 twin linked tank hunter STR 7 shots
- That's 72 twin linked, tank hunter, ignore cover, homing STR 5 shots
- That's 3 STR 8 AP2 large blast templates

Don't worry, the Reaver titan lists will take care of that. D-weapon spam laughs at your Broadsides and Riptides, and you only have three guns that can even roll dice against AV 14 (and all of them will be gone by the end of the first shooting phase). Don't you love Escalation?

This is why I attend every event I can that Reece runs. I trust him to make well thought out decisions and run a tight ship. And if something goes wrong he gives out beer.

Haha, you're revealing my secrets!

But yes, we take pride in what we do and want to do our best, always. Thanks for the vote of confidence, my friend!

@Carl

Ah, we'll see. We aren't going to make any decisions until we get the Poll results in.

80 so far!

@Thread

We just played another game with IG + Banenlade against Orks + Stompa. Great fun!

You take the D Weapons out of the equation and these units are not only manageable but a ton of fun to play. D Weapons just suck the fun out of the game for me, personally.

Expect that video bat rep tomorrow.

 Reecius wrote:

@Thread

We just played another game with IG + Banenlade against Orks + Stompa. Great fun!

You take the D Weapons out of the equation and these units are not only manageable but a ton of fun to play. D Weapons just suck the fun out of the game for me, personally.

Expect that video bat rep tomorrow.

I'd imagine Baneblades and Stompas would be fine for most games, in fact, with the extra VP's for killing them, may be more of a potential risk to bring than not (as a BB is, at worst, no harder to kill than 3 Leman Russ tanks). As you said, it's gonna be the D weapons that mess things up. Looking forward to seeing how it went.

Sad to see so many people using this for their own personal agendas to make the game easier for them .

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Sad to see so many people using this for their own personal agendas to make the game easier for them .

Why is making the game easier to play in a competitive environment sad?

Easier for you is not easier for everyone else.

Yeah Dozer, that's totally what's happening. The game is to hard for me TO's! Make it easier!

Good TOs do indeed, hence why their events thrive. They are good listeners.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Sad to see so many people using this for their own personal agendas to make the game easier for them .

Yes, heaven forbid that people should give their opinion on what they prefer, when asked what they prefer...

 morgendonner wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
I think people are honestly over complicating it. Treat Escalation like Planetstrike or Cities of Death. It's something we've done before so just do it again.

Ban "Formation" dataslates. New units that slot into the army are fine but Formations are a little silly, even if we only have two to go one and one isn't bad and it will cause me to still not have flyers that are good for my DA's or SW.

Those two things are enough to keep us where we are gameplay wise. Then if you wanna shift the 2++ re-roll you can do that too which I personally think would increase the enjoyment of tournaments for the average gamer.

100% with everything Hulksmash says right here.

I'm right there with the both of you. In fact - that's how I treat it

Toss me in with the group quoting and agreeing with Hulk's above post, as well.

Another on the Hulksmash bandwagon.

The only difference, this time I will *not* buy the book.

My TO banned list:
the reroll-able 2++. I can easily agree to a 2+, 3+ or even 2+, 4+ House Ruling.

How 'vested am I in this?
I just got a (unopended!) "Windrider" Apoc box of jetbikes, and I'm going to slap 'em together for next week's monthly tourney, to see if the Baron/JetSeer is really so broken. I mean, hey, if *I* win with it, then yeah, it's broken.

However, if I lose 2 outta 3 games, like normal, then the rest of the Internet can relax and finally accept that good generals win games, not their broken lists.

So those dataslates specifically state that you can add these to ANY army outside of ANY FOC?

 Fattimus_maximus wrote:
So those dataslates specifically state that you can add these to ANY army outside of ANY FOC?

Not all of the dataslates but the Tau Formation can be in anything that it could ally with.

Also I predict void shield shenanigans becoming a thing. Take the formation with 3 fully upgraded void shield generators (and the fuel line thingy 'cause you have too). 340 points and you have 9 AV 12 void shields (hull points that regenerate on a 5+) to get through before you can hurt anything in the overlapping zone. You can put three units on the battlements on each generator and one in the middle of the three buildings. All 4 units are protected from shooting outside 12" by 9 void shields and have 4+ cover.

 Tarrasq wrote:

 Fattimus_maximus wrote:
So those dataslates specifically state that you can add these to ANY army outside of ANY FOC?

Not all of the dataslates but the Tau Formation can be in anything that it could ally with.

Also I predict void shield shenanigans becoming a thing. Take the formation with 3 fully upgraded void shield generators (and the fuel line thingy 'cause you have too). 340 points and you have 9 AV 12 void shields (hull points that regenerate on a 5+) to get through before you can hurt anything in the overlapping zone. You can put three units on the battlements on each generator and one in the middle of the three buildings. All 4 units are protected from shooting outside 12" by 9 void shields and have 4+ cover.

Well yea! Where else am I supposed to put my tau firebase?

A quick point about using Lords of War in tournaments: After reading through Escalation I think the only lord of war that is a real game breaker is the Revenant Titan. Additionally, I think that Lords of War are not the problem, Strength D is the problem, and again, mainly just on the Revenant, since it has 4 D shots.

http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/08/were-not-prepared-to-repel-firepower-of-that-magnitude/

Just wrote an editorial on that topic for anyone interested.

 Reecius wrote:
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/08/were-not-prepared-to-repel-firepower-of-that-magnitude/

Just wrote an editorial on that topic for anyone interested.

That's a good read, thanks for posting it.

So even GW aren't sure if it's a supplement or an expansion, apparently...

My exact quote to the same picture on the N&R tyranid thread.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
"We haven't read Escalation yet".

Said Games Workshop.

Well it is dated December 2nd, so it is a possibility warhammer world staff didn't get their hands on it back then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it is also warhammer world staff, no the writers...

 insaniak wrote:
So even GW aren't sure if it's a supplement or an expansion, apparently...

The Warhammer World guys seem less informed about GW products than most forum goers to be honest.

Reece,
I'd prefer to play in a tournament that only allows core codices w/allies. I'd also like to see what I call 'pure allies', meaning that characters and independent characters are prevented from joining units from the allied codex.

In the big picture, though... I think that we are at the age of multiple formats (much like Magic: The Gathering). For example, there will be 4 different formats used on the 2014 MTG Pro Tour.

Anpu-adom wrote:
Reece,
I'd prefer to play in a tournament that only allows core codices w/allies. I'd also like to see what I call 'pure allies', meaning that characters and independent characters are prevented from joining units from the allied codex.

I think that would go a long way towards 'fixing' allies... remove the allies matrix completely, allow anyone to ally with anyone else, but ALL allies count as Desperate Allies.

 insaniak wrote:

Anpu-adom wrote:
Reece,
I'd prefer to play in a tournament that only allows core codices w/allies. I'd also like to see what I call 'pure allies', meaning that characters and independent characters are prevented from joining units from the allied codex.

I think that would go a long way towards 'fixing' allies... remove the allies matrix completely, allow anyone to ally with anyone else, but ALL allies count as Desperate Allies.

I hadn't thought of that... all allies are desperate, but it would indeed fix most of the aggravating interactions.

Back to the idea of pro-tour, what's to stop organizers from running the first day of the GT in one format and the second day (or even just the top bracket) in a second format? An example would be to run day 1 as "Pure Allies"; the majority of your judges can focus on the simpler environment. Lists for the second format are due 1 hour after the top bracket are announced. Top bracket can be one format (more points, longer games, forgeworld, escalation, etc) with more experienced judges, while the other brackets can be any format or even separate tournaments (nova-style).

Why would one SM chapter treat another as a desperate ally?

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Why would one SM chapter treat another as a desperate ally?

Because they all have their own private agendas, and there tends to be not a lot of trust between them. They all nominally work for the same Imperium, but very much do so in their own time and their own way.

Keep in mind that 'desperate ally' is just the tag that GW have chosen to apply to a level of alliance in which characters can't lead their ally's units, allied units aren't affected by each other's special rules, and the tag-along detachment doesn't count as scoring. There is nothing inherent to that list that doesn't fit two Marine Chapters sharing a battlefield.

@RiTides,

Thanks!

@Anpu

Duly noted, and looking at the various poll results, you are not alone in that opinion.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Why would one SM chapter treat another as a desperate ally?

Because they all have their own private agendas, and there tends to be not a lot of trust between them. They all nominally work for the same Imperium, but very much do so in their own time and their own way.

Keep in mind that 'desperate ally' is just the tag that GW have chosen to apply to a level of alliance in which characters can't lead their ally's units, allied units aren't affected by each other's special rules, and the tag-along detachment doesn't count as scoring. There is nothing inherent to that list that doesn't fit two Marine Chapters sharing a battlefield.

In the new codex they can ally without using the matrix from the rulebook though. Just saying...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
In the new codex they can ally without using the matrix from the rulebook though. Just saying...

That wouldn't change. They would just count as Desperate Allies.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
In the new codex they can ally without using the matrix from the rulebook though. Just saying...

That wouldn't change. They would just count as Desperate Allies.

seeing many of these now. Not sure what the benefit of going all the way down to DA would be. I lean twards a less harsher/subtle Allies of Convenience. Lets them operate in conjunction without a negative. However it removes the combos present and future. Unfortunatly all of these polls seem to want to ignore this option...

The whole problem started with allies and flyers. We accepted them though as an alternative more complex way of playing. We accepted supplements as they are a different view for each codex. More opportunities and stuff to use. We accepted the dataslates. Personally as we ve seen so little about them, I don't find them broken. And now we see the try of a company to grab even more money and they try to accomplish that by simply ignoring its customers. I say let's make the decision, as Reecius started it. We don't have to let this game die due to the ignorance of GW.

Reecius,

I bought a ticket and a pass today (before I saw the post). I had never seen what these weapons did until your report. It's pretty disappointing overall. I see that you aren't planning on letting them in the LVO, I'm just disappointed in the newest GW business model. It's not really a "game" anymore. It's like Yu-Gi-Oh for people with jobs and more disposable income. Why bother playing when you can just look at a list and surrender. Just expressing my disappointment not with you guys... just the loss of this game.

DrG

Comp, of the type but not the one used in Sweden. It's even in English!

Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

So based off The poll (not that it is a ton of responses)

The only things getting support (beyond Core codices)

Allies is between 61.25% and 89.7% depending on how you figure it breaks out

Supplements 61.9%-90.3%

Digial Codices 69.4%-87.8%

Forgeworld between 31.6%-60%

I view Escalation/Stronghold Assault as being best used like Cities of Death and Planetstrike....useful and fun for certain games. I think everything in BRB (including Allies) should be allowed, digital codices are fine too, and I don't mind dataslates. Adding in a new unit isn't bad for someone who's not aware of it, adding in a whole new set of rules (like cities or escalation) is much tougher and I find it very simple to just ignore a single supplement and continue with 40K.

Breng77 wrote:
So based off The poll (not that it is a ton of responses)

The only things getting support (beyond Core codices)

Allies is between 61.25% and 89.7% depending on how you figure it breaks out

Supplements 61.9%-90.3%

Digial Codices 69.4%-87.8%

Forgeworld between 31.6%-60%

I wonder if FW wouldn't be something more broadly accepted if the country as a whole moved to 0-1 a la some of AdeptiCon/NOVA/etc. events. It's a little bit of a compromise for some of the FW fans, and it's a significant compromise for the hardcore anti-FW people, but as a whole it might be something that gets closer to 75%-80% of the vote instead of possibly well under half (depending on how you read this ... it's clearly far less accepted than codices/allies/digital mainstreams).

The difference is that in Reece's events, it already is accepted for the most part. Yes, there might be some dissenters, and I may be wrong, but the majority of the people that go to Frontline events don't really mind it being in the main GT.

Narrative event, yes, they should have it, no argument from the population for the most part, the big thing is the flagship tournaments of the events. 0-1 would be a nice compremise to add it into the others that don't already have it, but for the Frontline events, that would be like a step backwards.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
The difference is that in Reece's events, it already is accepted for the most part. Yes, there might be some dissenters, and I may be wrong, but the majority of the people that go to Frontline events don't really mind it being in the main GT.

Narrative event, yes, they should have it, no argument from the population for the most part, the big thing is the flagship tournaments of the events. 0-1 would be a nice compremise to add it into the others that don't already have it, but for the Frontline events, that would be like a step backwards.

Other events' attendees might think going to 0-1 from 0-0 is a step backwards also. The point is - if the %'s are to be followed here and in general it's been similar for other polls by other event leads, you might find more attendees to ALL events and a more uniform understanding of what's to come if everyone went to that ... a little compromise from all sides. But that's just a thought.

Mike, did you just suggest compromise ? How dare you !

MarkyMark wrote:
Voted for core dex's, allies, supps and digi dex's. I.e what is in competitive 40k now. Seems I am with the majoirty so far

(copy and pasting to show a screen shot in case it changes drasticaly)

Core Codices.
16% [ 38 ]
Allies.
14% [ 34 ]
Codex Supplements, ie Clan Raukaan, etc.
15% [ 36 ]
Digital Codices, ie, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle, etc. 15% [ 35 ]

Dataslates, you really want to make a call on them now before they have all been released?.

Interesting poll though, look forward to seeing it with a few more votes!.

So been a few days and it is still pretty much as it was.

House rules are quite low down, considering how vocal many people are about it and the few people that replied to say keep it as it is, just 50 people compared to 239 for core and 93 for everything (assuming people voted for everything then didnt vote on anything else, just 15% overall then. FW is about a third which I would expect really. Data slates havent had a good reception really but probably due to the Tau one. The super heavies and Forts one, I think the forts one was too early to call seeing as the book wasnt out during the start of the poll and only been a few days, probably why we see more people for stronghold then escalation combined with everything stronghold is 156 odd so over half! and Escalation is 122 so just under half. Thats interesting.....

The other thing the two polls currently on dakka is missing, is the option to say whether they go to tournies or not. I reckon there will be a few votes from people who just have no interest for whatever reason in going to tournies. I would like to see the results of Reece's other poll (which I think was emailed to attendees for LVO?)

Why would a Poll in the tournament discussion forum, about tournaments include an option of "I don't play tournaments." Playing tournaments should kind of be an assumption. I guess you could say that people will vote on the poll that don't play tournaments though...so I don't know.

You say people don't want House rules but depending on overlap you have
188 votes for some kind of changes (Comp, rules change, banned units, different formats,

So it is more that people cannot seem to agree on what change to make rather than lacking the desire for change.

As for combining with everything, we don't know if people picked Everything and other options.. . So all we know is that it is between 93 and 122 people...for esclation which is well under half. If you do add then you need to add the 93 to the core codex to get 336 (at this time voters) so then you are only at 36% supporting Escalation and 46% for Stronghold. Those are the highest estimates more or less. So not all that strong really.

Monitor the data slates. Pick and choose as the community deems fit (Tau Firebase for example should not be allowed, considering it goes outside force org).

No SuperHeavies/D Weapons - as for super heavies, they just detract form the tabletop experience in my opinion, and d weapons need no explanation.

Modify 2++ re-roll saves, to 2++/4++ or make invuls max out at 3++.

Monitor Forgeworld - most FW is fine, but a few units (Thud Gun, Tau Riptide suit) are utterly un-fun...

You do this, and I believe you have yourself the best 40k experience to date

ForgeMarine wrote:
Monitor the data slates. Pick and choose as the community deems fit (Tau Firebase for example should not be allowed, considering it goes outside force org).

I agree.

No SuperHeavies/D Weapons - as for super heavies, they just detract form the tabletop experience in my opinion, and d weapons need no explanation.

I'd agree with SuperHeavies as long as there's no D Weapons (or simply modify them as str10 ap1).

Modify 2++ re-roll saves, to 2++/4++ or make invuls max out at 3++.

I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

Monitor Forgeworld - most FW is fine, but a few units (Thud Gun, Tau Riptide suit) are utterly un-fun...

I'm in the camp that if it's 40k approved, then it's a valid unit.

You do this, and I believe you have yourself the best 40k experience to date

It's already an awesome event! He's providing the beer!

@Reece be sure the bring plenty!

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

What is wrong with BB?

 Dozer Blades wrote:

zedsdead wrote:

 Dozer Blades wrote:
Going by the poll allies are very popular. I doubt TOs are going to do away with it or nerf it.

In the Poll i voted to allow allies however given the choice i would have also voted to go from BB to AoC.

At this point in 6th edition im pretty much opposed to either banning Allies or trying to roll them into the main FoC. Removing BB abilities is a much more toned down version IMHO and the best compromise.

What is wrong with BB?

That's been my question for this whole thread. Jetseers having Hit & Run would be ended by getting rid of Battle Brothers, but this seems like a huge rule change to fix so small a problem. People might point to Farseers and Tau Commanders passing too many buffs on to allied units, but this isn't a real "problem" so much as it is a very powerful list that we dislike. Amending the ally rules to nerf Tau-dar would be outlandishly shortsighted.

Also, I've been bothered by a lot of the talk around Escalation. People point that it is meant to be used in regular 40K and say that that makes it different from Planetstrike or City Fight. I am reminded, though, of the idea of the Social Contract. These books only have power in so far as we GIVE them power. Just because GW says Escalation is different than Spearhead does not make that true. Escalation is the exact same as all those other books, but GW changed some wording to trick people who weren't really interested in them into buying them. This is a pretty simple smoke screen to see through if we just try.

@Whembly

Count on it!

At Frontline Gaming we live by a simple motto: Win or Lose, We Still Booze! haha

@Garner

Yes, FW in our events is accepted and actually folks will not go if we stop using it! We definitely buck the trends in that regard. Otherwise the numbers we have seen are pretty close in a lot of the other respects to the above.

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

I'm not sure I'd 100% agree with that...

I think the frustration level is also the current 6th Ed mechanic. Take for example the baron+beast squad+jetseer... the playing mechanic really sucks as you'd have to roll each die individually if you want to LOS (or if you want to take it on the Baron, you could roll two dice at a time). Volume of fire will still take it down if you can bring it.

I play mainly Dark Eldar (without that cheese) and Dark Angels. Usually, I just play the mission and ignore that unit. I realize that some armies just don't have an answer to it. But, I truly believe that there are HARD counters for just about any lists.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one tried to use a Grey Knight allies just to bring that Sniper. *shrugs*

Point being, I've been playing 40k long enough that there is ALWAYS some sort of uber out in the wild. My thought process? Bring it bish!

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I disagree with this vehemently. It's simply a power build. Every edition, Codex update, etc often creates new uber units/rules shenanigans. Man... I remember that Nob Bikers, Space Wolves Thunderwolf, JotWW, Blood Angels fast everything were the ultimate . The game has always evolved to deal with these threats.

The difference between re-rollable 2++ units and other "cheese" is the frustration level involved. Sure, losing to overpowered units sucks, but at least with most of them you felt like you were actually doing something to them. A unit with a re-rollable 2++, on the other hand, is pretty much immune to anything you throw at it. All you can do is watch helplessly as it slaughters your stuff and hope that it can't kill all of your objective holders before the game ends. And that sense of helplessness just takes the frustration to an entirely new level that we haven't seen before.

And yes, there are "counters" if you specifically plan to deal with those units, but tournaments are about more than just the top few players who bring perfectly optimized TAC lists and are always ready for the metagame. If you're an average player it's unlikely that you have one of those specific counters, so you might as well go eat lunch and come back to let your opponent tell you if they won the "game" or not.

I'm not sure I'd 100% agree with that...

I think the frustration level is also the current 6th Ed mechanic. Take for example the baron+beast squad+jetseer... the playing mechanic really sucks as you'd have to roll each die individually if you want to LOS (or if you want to take it on the Baron, you could roll two dice at a time). Volume of fire will still take it down if you can bring it.

I play mainly Dark Eldar (without that cheese) and Dark Angels. Usually, I just play the mission and ignore that unit. I realize that some armies just don't have an answer to it. But, I truly believe that there are HARD counters for just about any lists.

Frankly, I'm surprised that no one tried to use a Grey Knight allies just to bring that Sniper. *shrugs*

Point being, I've been playing 40k long enough that there is ALWAYS some sort of uber out in the wild. My thought process? Bring it bish!

You really cant bring down a 2++ re-roll even with volume of fire. you need 36 WOUNDS to remove one model, now do the math to how many hits and shots fired are needed (108 marine bolter shots if im correct to bring down 1 of 10 models) which will then split up into 5 units on turn 5 and contest every objective in a timed tournament when you know the game will end. a 2++ re-roll i would argue is NOT an intended game mechanic, since outside pys power exploitation there is no wargear which offers anything close to this level of survive-ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Additionally, once forgeworld catches on, wait till you see 12 thud guns or the new tau suits on the table to judge it. Im all for 98% of FW, but there are several units in there which are equally as unbalanced a a screamer star throwing out 12 d6 s5 shots. Were not talking about addressing game mechanics or missions, simply a few very very overpowered units. Do you enjoy playing against seerstars or screamerstars, because unless something is done they WILL WIN 85% of competitively played game (see torrent of fire for stats) and as a result, expect to play it 3-4 times in a 8 game tourney if you plan on competing.

OR wait till you face 3 riptides, 18 broadsides with tank hunter and PE marines and an inquisitor with 6 henchmen for a really good time.

everything people say thats wrong about rerollable 2++'s and super heavies and super fortifications

is wrong about the "legal" FW units that everyone takes as well (no Im not talking the fine FW units, IM talking the ones that people SPAM in comp tournies, IE artillary carridge, sabres, and so on, undercosted by 40% to do something better then a more expensive unit from the codex)

FW + SH's are the same brand of "legal" stuff that has NO place in sub 2k games, our sub 2k tournaments.

none at all...

banning half of FW, but not the other half, is just silly and forcing people to play YOUR 40k.. cause your FW is "fine" and my FW (super heavies) isnt ...

if we want FAIR and fun as well as competittive tournaments need we need it to be just the codexes, digi or not,
and you get one of :allies or fort or INQ or dataslate or suppliment ally... and the data slates/supplements have to fit inside the original FOC... no more of this stupid 4+ heavies/FA slots shenanigans.

Why ban any thing yet. Have we had a major tournament yet to see how this works out. How would that elder titan done against flyers?

Here is the thing with that approach though...what major TO wants to put their event up as the "sacrificial lamb" to find those things out?

So if I'm a TO ans say "everythings allowed" and players decide that is not what they want to play my event fails and I lose money...

If people show up and have no fun...the reputation of the event might suffer with negative publicity...no one wants to put on an unfun event.

So there is only one scenario where it really works out and that is if everything is perfectly fine.

As a TO why take that risk?

Just say no to D-WEAPONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if it has a D or is a super-heavy, cant use it, easy.

But yes to fortifications.

You can buy void shields which fix the ignore cover thing the tau chip commander has going.

You can buy extra air-defense to balance out the necron flier army.

bunkers and large building to protect against all HTH hand rush armies if they cant hurt armor 14.

If people want to spend a ton of points on building, less troops on the board.

Network forts are what is going to save the game, treat a fort as a tank shock on a unit for terrain when setting it up. Move terrain the minimum distance to allow the placement of the fort. SIMPLE, VERY SIMPLE, NOT HARD, TAKES ONE SECOUND TO SET THEM UP.

Even better...use GW's terrain placement rules! (Seriously). We use a modified format at AdeptiCon, and we used the same modified format at the Mich GT, and it worked fine!

Majority of terrain piece placed on your half of the table, alternating placement, terrain placed AFTER fortifications are placed.

Even better...use GW's terrain placement rules! (Seriously). We use a modified format at AdeptiCon, and we used the same modified format at the Mich GT, and it worked fine!

Majority of terrain piece placed on your half of the table, alternating placement, terrain placed AFTER fortifications are placed.

+1 to this. I thought the terrain placement added an excellent degree of strategy to my Adepticon games. MORE TOURNAMENTS SHOULD DO THIS

 easysauce wrote:
everything people say thats wrong about rerollable 2++'s and super heavies and super fortifications is wrong about the "legal" FW units that everyone takes as well

Not even close. We aren't talking about mere bad balance here, we're talking about lists where it's not even worth playing the game for many people. Against the overpowered FW units at least you can fight back against them and feel like you're doing something, even if your chances of winning the game are pretty bad. Against a Revenant list or screamerstar all you can really do is take your models off the table one at a time and wonder why you bothered playing instead of conceding the game and taking a lunch break.

(no Im not talking the fine FW units, IM talking the ones that people SPAM in comp tournies, IE artillary carridge, sabres, and so on, undercosted by 40% to do something better then a more expensive unit from the codex)

You mean kind of like how codex units are undercosted by 40%? Why is it the end of the world if a FW unit is too cheap, but when the Vendetta is indisputably too cheap that's just something you have to deal with?

Let anything printed in and anything digital that is not "GW DLC", ie the 2 dollar wargear BS.

Limit people to choosing an ally, a lord of war, or a fortification. You get one, but no more.

Allow Forge World additions to core lists, but maximum one unit of a given type per army.

Allow the newer Forge World army lists if the person has a hard copy of the book.

Treat Str D as "S10, Armorbane, Fleshbane, Ignores Invulnerable Saves"

Target ban a couple of the problematic things in the FW books, like the guy who knows the entire divination discipline.

Limit total Psycher levels to 6 per army, both to cut back on combos and to speed play. This ultimately might not be needed if you are willing to simply ban the use of Invisibility or disallow rerolling of 2+ saves other than armor.



The other option would be to re-implement soft scores again, which would allow you to have fewer and longer rounds so that games would actually generally make it past turn three. If you go that route, I would still cut back Str D how I suggested.

So I put my thoughts (currently) on Comp http://connecticon40k.blogspot.com/ on my blog. Essentially Percentile based restricitons on FOC slots. Instead of bans or rule changes (not that I am fully opposed to that) Interested to hear what people think...Is there a way to break it too easily...etc.

Only issue with the percentage system is that you run into the issue of why it was dumped in the first place. Some army books have really good, or at least serviceable, troop choices. Others have pure garbage that gets taken purely to fill requirements. And most armies have logjams of their good stuff in certain other slots, so you are essentially widening a the power gap a lot.

Example- Capping Elite percentages and requiring higher troop percentages is a pretty huge kick to the balls to Nids, vanilla SM, chaos, and arguable footdar. Not exactly barn burner builds. Farsight Tau, Daemons, Guard, and Crons are not really touched at all, honestly.

If all armies had at least descent workable troops, this would be a little more feasible. But when you have armies that can cover every base in the troop slot, which also happen to be the better armies out there, you really are just magnifying the issue by implementing percentages.

So who has bad troops? What is considered a bad troop choice? That is all a matter of perspective.

So you are saying taking 500 points of troops at 2k is too much for most armies?...I'm mean kicking Nids in the balls really? I take 2 Tervigons and 2 Gaunt squads...Done. CSM I can run Plauge Marines, or Regular CSM....Vanilla Marines taking bikes as troops so horrible...Foot dar can take Wraith guard...2 Squads done with my troops.

Daemons not being TOuched? Right now they spam Fasts and HQ and Heavies with Minimum troops (all of which are cheap ) so they need to bring at least 50 troop models at 2k points.

In theory (and I am not against examining it) you could remove the troop minimum, or lower it if it proved to be a problem.

As to Elite Capping really what can you not take at 2k points with 500-700 points (if we went with a 10% flex).

Also remember that everyone is losing in different areas...I'm not sure it is what you say...just different than now.

Essentially I'm not looking to be able to build every army you can now...just that every codex has viable (often multiple viable builds)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
So who has bad troops? What is considered a bad troop choice? That is all a matter of perspective.

Exactly...if the killing power of all armies is a bit curbed by restrictions troops also get stronger by comparison.

Boys before Toys... People minimizing troops and maximizing other crap is part of the issue. If people are taking less than 25% troops in favor for spamming more 'other stuff' to holy hell then they need to deal with that.

I don't know what a bad troop is... But people seem to be used to having minimal troops which hide all game and swoop in opposed to making substantial troops which survive and move tactically. It is 'easier' for them to sit back and hide a MSU troop and bring them out when everyone else has been nuked from orbit. They just don't want to have the hardness of using a troop as intended and possibly having to shoot things with 25 small arms opposed to a single death cannon.

Yup, if you had to take troops and they were a substantial enough part of the army to need to do something People would make it work.

I think people see I need to spend 25% and freak out. I tis really not that much for many armies.

(especially at lower points but at 2k)

It is like 40 Marines without upgrades...start upgrading and that number drops. (30 marines in rhinos or Pods basically make it.)

Most armies have FO swaps where more expensive units can be troops if desired.

remember allies also exist.

Don't like your troops (if you are not nids) ally and get better ones...

My opinion is that it should be limited to two codexes and and allow things like sentinels of terra to be used as main lists. I would allow the escalation book but that damn eldar titan is just too off the deep end so i'm hesitant.

My $.02

I like the idea of banning or nerfing a few things. Really like the idea of just saying no Grimoire, no Special Characters (Baron) as allies, and only 1 dataslate (not formation) or ally per list. I feel like there's a reasonable limit out there somewhere on DTs (looking at you Eldar and to a lesser degree Necrons). Maybe no more than 3 of the same? But then SM and especially DE and Orks get hit hard by that. I dunno.

Definitely like the idea of a separate "no holds barred" event, but certainly the prize support should place this as a secondary event if there is to be any real progress in getting the tourney scene under control.