They have announced few specifics, but several overall objectives. I found the article they reference about metagame design fascinating. Some good ideas here.
Someone from our gaming club pointed out that making changes to 40k without play testing is just as bad as GW doing it. Idk...I like the concept but pulling this off without pitchforks and torches will be tough. Especially when the sky is falling already.
Math in general doesn't need to be playtested terribly. People who have experience with the current meta and understand math can make reasonable corrections without extensive playtesting. While there should be some... we can have rough ideas through simple mathhammer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I like some of these... I like formation OR allies one.
Painnen wrote: Someone from our gaming club pointed out that making changes to 40k without play testing is just as bad as GW doing it. Idk...
You could point out to him that FoB is, what, 10 months away? And that in the announcement they specifically state that it's a work in progress, and only list potential changes as an overview of what they are thinking about doing.
And yes, there's already a thread on this, that's for some inexplicable reason posted in the Battle Reports forum.
Was just reading through the other thread that is now locked and linked to this one (here), but I can't read the article in the OP because it looks like they've exceeded their bandwidth! Didn't expect all of Dakka to try to open it on the same day, apparently
So right now I get an error at this link, does anyone have it saved and can do a copy/paste?
RiTides wrote: Was just reading through the other thread that is now locked and linked to this one (here), but I can't read the article in the OP because it looks like they've exceeded their bandwidth! Didn't expect all of Dakka to try to open it on the same day, apparently
So right now I get an error at this link, does anyone have it saved and can do a copy/paste?
This is not going to be a short post. I will do my very best to explain what Feast of Blades as a tournament is doing, and to give you some insight into the thoughts going around at the high-level organizational level. For those of you who are unaware, I am the head 40k Tournament Organizer for Feast of Blades, an annual major 40k event.
With the recent release of Stronghold Assault and Escalation, 40k is, to put it bluntly, no longer suitable as a tournament game. The inclusion of Strength D into the game, following months and months of “power combo” lists taking top tables at tournaments has made it more than evident that this game as written simply isn't designed for or appropriate for ANY sort of high-level competitive play.
Some people think that's a good thing, or may simply say “no duh”. Believe me, none of us are blind to this fact, it's something we've all been aware of for the few decades 40k has existed. But up until this point, we've still pushed for competitive play and organized tournaments because they're fun. It's great to be able to go to a tournament for a weekend, drink beers and play games against strangers. It's awesome to see the variety of lists, the master-level paintjobs, and the crazy conversions that people come up with. And there's nothing in the hobby quite like seeing one of those big-event Apocalypse tables, with more Baneblades, Titans, and Thunderhawks than you've ever seen, flying around and fighting on the same board.
There's no doubt that 5th edition was the closest this game has ever been to a “tournament” rule set, but 6th has turned things the other way around. This isn't due to 6th being an innately terrible rule set, (yes, it definitely has problems, but it's not awful) but rather due to the rapid-fire codex release scheduled creating very powerful builds and combos.
Recently, we've been hearing from several very reliable sources that GW has stopped their playtesting, or has at least reduced it to a very minimal amount. This jives with the releases and units we've been seeing show up all across the country. You'll find mass Wraithknights, quad-Riptide, Necron Airforce, and Screamerstar as common contenders in many major (and not so major) tournaments across the country.
Can these lists be beaten? Yes. Definitely. We see top players beat them all the time. But are they fair? Do they create a fun tournament environment? To address that I'm going to take a very long quote from an article by Sirlin, a man who has designed several of his own games and rebalanced several more. I believe it cuts to the heart of the issue:
“…While I think the earlier arguments that good balance leads to problems in Chess and Starcraft make no sense at all, the argument about the metagame is much more subtle. I believed this same argument for a long time, but I don't any more. The argument goes like this: it's ok for a character to be too powerful because then players will try to find ways to beat that character with otherwise weaker characters who happen to be good against that particular strong character. Extra Credits further says that you explore more strategy in a game with this property than with a game with actually fair characters because with fair characters you'd be locked into doing the same kind of thing and not looking for counter-characters.”You could make that same argument about decks in Magic: the Gathering. I think this is an illusion, and I was caught in it for years because it's kind of “conventional wisdom” and never even really questioned or talked about. I only really started to realize why this doesn't add up when I was working on my own customizable card game. A “rich metagame” means there are lots of decks that counter other decks, and you get to sit around thinking about which deck will be common at a tournament and which you should choose in response. For example, if you discovered an unusual deck that could win 9-1 against the most of the field and lose 1-9 against part of the field, that could be a very, very strong deck. This is metagaming at its finest, yet it also leads to 100% of your games having terrible gameplay. (emphasis mine -Biscuit)
“And there's the rub. The kind of metagame under discussion is one where global imbalance is assumed to be “good.” The assumption is that sitting down to play another player and having a advantage or disadvantage before the game even starts is a great thing. Well, it kind of sucks actually, and violates the concepts of basic fairness. You could define “the game” to be the larger thing that involves “picking a deck/character + playing it” but that's hardly an answer. It's just admitting that the part where you actually play is kind of sucky and unfair.
“I'll tell you the key moment of discovery I had about this issue. I had several decks mocked up for my CCG. You would expect a variety of decks to happen to have several really unfair matchups, and for that to cause a metagame to form. The thing is, I didn't design these decks to win a tournament, I designed them to test out how the game plays, so I used a few rules of thumb in deckbuilding that actually prevented any really unfair matches like 8-2 from happening. I figured that later when we thought about how players would really build their decks (not according to my personal rules), we'd have to figure out how to deal with those inevitable 8-2 matchups. The CCG community often assumes they are great (“it's the metagame!”) but I think the emphasis should be on the part where you actually playing the game and making decisions. Deckbuilding is great, but not if it wrecks the fairness of individual games you will actually have to play.
“Anyway, allowing players complete freedom in deckbuilding in my game absolutely would lead to 8-2 matchups (like in any customizable card game) AND it would actually lead to worse strategy than my playtest decks! When metagaming and trying to win, you really want to take out all the “strategy” you can, and make sure you just stomp as many opposing decks as possible, even if you have pretty bad matches in there somewhere.
“You probably already see the revelation. Why not codify the rules of thumb of deckbuilding I was using into real rules of the game? Put limits on deckbuilding in such a way that still allow it, but that prevent the majority of unfair matches from happening. This seemed so obvious in hindsight.
“Now, unrelated to that, I also went to great lengths to give the player more strategic choices during a game than is usual in the genre. Tricky to do without being too complicated, but that's another story. The bottom line is so far this game is shaping up to be a game with more strategic choices during gameplay than other similar games I've played AND with fewer unfair matchups. This is possible by REDUCING the importance of the metagame. It's just more fun to have the GAME, the part where you actually sit down and play give you a) a lot of strategic options and b) as fair a match as we can give you.
“We shouldn't dwell on this particular in-development card game though. It's a general principle that you get more strategic depth during a game session by, well, focusing on making that as good as possible. As good as possible means putting more strategic decisions in and taking unfairness out. That's the opposite of the intentional imbalance glorified in the Extra Credits video. It's the opposite of making the decisions made before the game even starts become more important (necessarily making in-game decisions that much less important.)
“Making a bunch of unfair matches intentionally is just a poor man's solution to the problem of strategic variety. In the end, that poor man's solution constrains your strategic choices anyway, rather than opens them up. You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters. Having a set of characters who ALL have fair matches and who ALL have a lot of strategy options makes you wonder what the point of intentionally having unfair matchups ever was in the first place.”
Obviously, there's no way for us to make 40k into a “perfectly balanced” game without rewriting it from the ground up- no amount of banning or small rewrite is going to significantly alter the game to the point where listbuilding isn't a major part of the game that provides a major advantage to those who do it well. To be honest, I'm not even sure such a game would be fun- to make it work, much of the character of 40k would be stripped away in the process. And even if we did, no game is perfect. (I suppose it's another Sirlin reference, but the discussion of Chess' evolution and current state is what I'm more interested in with that article.)
Right now top level tournament lists are incredibly polarizing, much more than they have been in a long time, and playing these lists simply isn't any fun. No one is having a great time playing against Screamerstar, even most of the Screamerstar players I talk to aren't having a great time playing it. The mere existence of 3+ Heldrake builds has an extreme effect on the meta, annihilating hundreds of possible builds through it's ability to simply obliterate them. (So why even bring them?) I could go on, but I think you all know what I'm talking about.
It's past time for tournament organizers to step up and start taking some stewardship of the game. The top lists in 40k are, as a rule, simply no fun to play or play against, and limit much of the field by being so overwhelmingly powerful against so many reasonable builds. Really, the fact of the matter is that games in 6th edition between what we would consider mid-tier lists are a heck of a lot of fun, and what most players are requesting to play.
Feast of Blades is not the only tournament who is thinking this way. I would be extremely surprised if there is a major tournament from this point forward that does not use some form of restrictions and bannings in order to create a better game. GW has made it extremely clear that they do not care to balance the game for tournament level play, or create a fun top-tier metagame, so that architecture falls to us.
We are interested in running a tournament who's results fall more to player tabletop skill than listbuilding skill. We are interested in running an event where many builds are possible, not just a few power-and-counter builds. To that end, Feast of Blades will be enacting limits and bans.
The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:
———————————————————————————————————-
1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.
2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.
3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.
4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.
5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.
6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.
7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)
8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.
———————————————————————————————————-
For the vast majority of players, this list of changes will have little, and frequently no effect on their army build. Many of the games power builds, however, will become quite different.
We are aware that limitations such as these also create “new” power lists- after all, what was once second-tier must now be first. Perhaps. In the new environment there will certainly be builds better than others, and some that are extremely powerful. We expect that, but we also expect there to be a much greater variety of competitive options and lists vying for those spots. We also expect the game to be much more fun.
This is obviously a living document, and will be updated as time goes on. Not necessarily when a codex is released, but when we have had time to evaluate whether a certain unit, combination, item, etc. is actually very limiting to the field or not.
Our goal is to limit the game at the top end in ways that will be very small to most players in order to create a more balanced and fun tournament scene. We do not want to rewrite unit rules or entries or do things like adjust point costs, nor do we want to create massive documents that preside over army composition and limit force creation in detailed ways. We believe simple changes are for the best.
Obviously there are some who will cry foul at our attempt, or disagree with some of the things we have done. That's fine. They can always choose to play in different events, or create their own! But I think it is worth noting that Feast is simply the first of many events that will be instituting policies like these in one form or another, so you should be prepared. It's worth remembering that the 2013 Feast event was one of the the most by-the-book events ever run- it even used straight book missions with no modifications. If we're the first to do this, we certainly won't be the last.
GW is no longer creating a fun tournament environment, so it falls to us. In the same way that casual gamers are adults who can agree on how they would like to play, the tournament scene will adjust itself so that it creates fun, memorable, and challenging games of 40k. Anything else would be a failure on our parts.
Thanks pretre, I guess this is the key part (what they're leaning towards with their restrictions currently):
The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:
———————————————————————————————————-
1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.
2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.
3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.
4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.
5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.
6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.
7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)
8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.
I am in favor of these changes. Let some of the other tournaments cater to the cheeze head win at all cost players. The game has been in need of balance for a very long time and GW is neglegent. All they care about now are rules that sell models. See:rvanna riptide, new marine super flyer, centurions with grav guns, riptides, necron crossants, ect..
As I said in the other thread, I love this idea, but they have to make it all inclusive. This list of bans / comps should bey fairly long before it's finished and as long as reasonable time is spent getting it right they'll still have a solid attendance.
I can't argue against the reasons for the comp system that he's given. I'd like to see this develop more to the way of the ETC though. They don't usually ban things, but put restrictions on combinations of things in an effort to balance....
Really? Banning grimoire? Why not beat every non-tzeench daemon player in the face with a stick after they pay you to go.
Limiting mastery levels in an army? Same thing. Daemons only options are 1 weapon and psychic mastery levels. Heck, I run mono-slaanesh, and without my odd invis here or there, my t3 5+ dies, esp with no grimoire.
Yup, I think some of the above is too heavy handed.
Banning the Grimoir and limiting mastery levels essentially wipes out the top 2 Daemon builds, while not hurting Tau and Eldar Much at all (seer council might be hurt by ML restriction, but Serpent spam won't be, so unless Wave Serpents are one of the 0-1 units they'll still be the Top army.)
This really makes me excited to see what Frontline, Adepticon, and Nova decide to do about the current issues. Clearly, decisions have to be made about a lot of these new products, and I applaud Feast for being proactive. I think these steps are a little misguided, but the fact that steps are being taken by a major US tournament is a good sign. The other big events should hopefully be a little more balanced than this, but if this opens the door to the possibility of major changes coming from the other guys, I'm happy about it.
Some of this seems...harsh, premature, and overly invasive.
Banning the Grimiore is pretty intense. As is limiting the total number of psy masterly levels. Some of the other fixes seem decent, but maybe unnecessary. I'm still in favor of more broad changes than constantly limiting each release.
Dude_I_Suck wrote: Really? Banning grimoire? Why not beat every non-tzeench daemon player in the face with a stick after they pay you to go.
Limiting mastery levels in an army? Same thing. Daemons only options are 1 weapon and psychic mastery levels. Heck, I run mono-slaanesh, and without my odd invis here or there, my t3 5+ dies, esp with no grimoire.
Well played Imperium of Man, well played.
I have to agree whole heartedly... This suggested comp as of right now reads like a butt-hurt Durp Knight player who's pissed they can't auto-win vs. Daemons anymore.
No Grimoire, limit on Mastery Lv's, why not just come right out and say what you mean, "I think Chaos Daemons are broken so they're banned."
If they want this to be taken seriously, then do one or both of two things;
1. Place a limit on the combos like ETC does as mentioned above. So to 'fix' the Daemons issue, make something like, 'either Fateweaver OR The Grimoire may be taken in the same army.' There, done. Now the 'Screamerstar' is only 66% efficient as it lacks the key re-roll Fatey provided to make it a no-brainer option.
You can also add in something like, 'no more than 8 levels of Divination & Telepathy combined may be taken.' Mono-Slaanesh won't run a lot/if any Div as they need Tzeentch HQ's for that, meanwhile the stupidity you can reach by combined mass Div + Telepathy across a mono-Tzeentch army is kept in check.
2. Limit the number of duplicate choices, or else provide 'comp hits' to spamming the main culprit sections.
0-1 limits only ever led to cookie-cutter lists back in the day. It's why GW did away with them. If someone really wants their crutches, let them have them, just perhaps take a page from the Swedish Comp system in Fantasy and provide a big comp hit/bonus VP's to their opponent for going overboard on the really dumb things like 6+ Wave Serpents. It will encourage more diversity in lists and reduce the extreme crutch builds.
Now by 'duplicate choices', it means exactly that; limit the number of 100% carbon copies, down to the last upgrade. So for example, if an Eldar player wants their 4x 5 Dire Avengers in Wave Serpents, then they'll need to spend a few added points to ensure that each unit is slightly different. It may not 100% 'fix' the problem, but it is adding a tax to taking your favourite crutch which will hurt your overall list in the end.
I have no idea what the Gromoire does, so no opinion there. Not sure of the need to limit psychic levels... but other than that, I really like this list, and would love to see something similar implemented for Adepticon.
Good idea, not great execution. I understand where he is coming from, most high level super competitive lists simply aren't to much fun to play against, while i enjoyed my foray into competiitve lists, they where still friendly games. In a tourney, you aren't guaranteed of this, so for everyone to have fun i agree they NEED to change some rules or add in some restrictions. I also agree that this list beats on daemon quite hard, i believe they shouldn't ban Grimour, but they can't leave it how it is, even when used on Khorne Dogs they re still OP when they get forewarning. Before i get on to the mastery level limit, i would want to know what it is. For example if the mastery level limit is somewhere around 10-12 i would be OK with that, gives you room to have fateweaver and a herald or two, but not 4 heralds with Fateweaver and some daemon princes. Seems fair to me. I will be extremely interested to see how this tourny goes down, not to see the balance, but to see if people have more fun.
insaniak wrote: I have no idea what the Gromoire does, so no opinion there. Not sure of the need to limit psychic levels... but other than that, I really like this list, and would love to see something similar implemented for Adepticon.
1. The Grimoire of True Names adds +2 to the invulnerable save of any unit with the 'Daemon' special rule on a roll of 3+. But on a 1-2, that unit suffers -1 invuln instead. It cannot affect the Daemon carrying it - ever!
Daemons of Tzeentch have the ability to always re-rolls saving throw results of 1, plus Tzheralds & LoC have access to upto 3 levels of Divination.
The problem steams from spamming Divination in order to gain the 4++ Blessing power, then use the Grimoire to further push it up to a 2++ save, which Daemons of Tzeentch then re-roll 1's.
Do this to a unit of 9 Screamers + 4 Tzheralds all riding Discs and you've got one of the biggest & most boring crutches in the game.
2. They don't need to limit the amount of psychic levels at all - just limit the amount of Divination especially, and perhaps Telepathy that an army can include. Divination is stupidly broken atm because only SW's can reliably counter the "lore of blessings" as it's known.
I’m a bit of a daemons player. Also, I’ve played against them in competitions; several varieties. My current tournament army contains 1/3 daemons as allies. I don’t run the Grimore and I don’t think it’s an auto include.
Look, the grimore is a solid 30 point buy. I’m not going to deny that, but damn. It appears that many think that there is NO way to run a successful daemons list without it? Really? I mean, Really!? This one piece of wargear is so great that playing without it is an outrageous concept.
If you have that kind of knee jerk reaction, think these things. 1) Do I play Daemons? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 2) Have I played a daemons list without it? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 3) If you have played daemons without it. Great, you can complain in safety. But think on this, if it is such an auto include that you can’t imagine taking a daemons list without it, doesn’t that indicate an issue?
Again it’s a great piece of wargear(well gift) but it’s not the end all be all of that Codex and saying that banning it kills all possible builds is just hyperbolic and silly. Take a lesson I learned from IG, redundancy. Instead of taking one powerful unit, buffing its survivability, and letting it do the heavy lifting, try taking multiples that way if one dies that battle isn’t lost. I’m for banning the grimore and I say that even though I use daemons competitively.
Datajax wrote: I’m a bit of a daemons player. Also, I’ve played against them in competitions; several varieties. My current tournament army contains 1/3 daemons as allies. I don’t run the Grimore and I don’t think it’s an auto include.
Look, the grimore is a solid 30 point buy. I’m not going to deny that, but damn. It appears that many think that there is NO way to run a successful daemons list without it? Really? I mean, Really!? This one piece of wargear is so great that playing without it is an outrageous concept.
If you have that kind of knee jerk reaction, think these things. 1) Do I play Daemons? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 2) Have I played a daemons list without it? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 3) If you have played daemons without it. Great, you can complain in safety. But think on this, if it is such an auto include that you can’t imagine taking a daemons list without it, doesn’t that indicate an issue?
Again it’s a great piece of wargear(well gift) but it’s not the end all be all of that Codex and saying that banning it kills all possible builds is just hyperbolic and silly. Take a lesson I learned from IG, redundancy. Instead of taking one powerful unit, buffing its survivability, and letting it do the heavy lifting, try taking multiples that way if one dies that battle isn’t lost. I’m for banning the grimore and I say that even though I use daemons competitively.
The big issue with the Grimoire is when it's used on Tzeentch's boys alongside Fatey to build the foolproof 2++/re-roll unit. Fix the single abusive issue - don't nerf the entire freaking codex because of a single gimmick.
As a mono-Tzeentch player, I have never found the Grimoire to be 'auto-include' in order to win.
When I do use it, I'd rather use it as well as Forewarning, not combo'd with it into a single target though... Having a unit of 4++ Flamers, coupled with a LoC casting Precognition on himself and then hitting the Changebringers ('counts as' Plaguedrones) with "The Good Book" while going flat out with the Screamers is way more flexible and overall useful than a single 'uber unit.
I think this is the appropriate responses from the GTTOs, but I think some people are knee jerking too hard. It's about 10 months until Feast. Their comp list will change by then because they will do one thing GW doesn't.... play test it.
So stop getting amazingly upset over the grimoire not being there. A better solution will be had. But this is a step in the right direction. I'd love to feel at least like I could possibly stand a chance if I wanted to bring pure sisters without relying on allies or static fortifications because hell turkeys vaporize my army like no tomorrow.
Datajax wrote: I’m a bit of a daemons player. Also, I’ve played against them in competitions; several varieties. My current tournament army contains 1/3 daemons as allies. I don’t run the Grimore and I don’t think it’s an auto include.
Look, the grimore is a solid 30 point buy. I’m not going to deny that, but damn. It appears that many think that there is NO way to run a successful daemons list without it? Really? I mean, Really!? This one piece of wargear is so great that playing without it is an outrageous concept.
If you have that kind of knee jerk reaction, think these things. 1) Do I play Daemons? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 2) Have I played a daemons list without it? If not, think before saying it’s the only way. You haven’t tried it. 3) If you have played daemons without it. Great, you can complain in safety. But think on this, if it is such an auto include that you can’t imagine taking a daemons list without it, doesn’t that indicate an issue?
Again it’s a great piece of wargear(well gift) but it’s not the end all be all of that Codex and saying that banning it kills all possible builds is just hyperbolic and silly. Take a lesson I learned from IG, redundancy. Instead of taking one powerful unit, buffing its survivability, and letting it do the heavy lifting, try taking multiples that way if one dies that battle isn’t lost. I’m for banning the grimore and I say that even though I use daemons competitively.
"I learned from IG, redundancy. Instead of taking one powerful unit, buffing its survivability, and letting it do the heavy lifting, try taking multiples..."
It's a shame it has come to this. GW have placed the bait, now the community gets to tear itself apart with everyone trying their hand at 'fixing' 40k.
Feast 2012 had some of the worst-balanced scenarios I've ever played in a GT. At a time when Necrons were at the height of their powers, they introduced 'table quarters' (in which Flyers were entirely non-scoring) in every mission in an attempt to rebalance the game. What happened? Maybe 1 Necron Scythewing actually showed up, then promptly got smacked into the low, low brackets, while Flamer/Screamer Daemon spam beat face on every other table. Mmmm...taste the balance!
Point being: if the people who drafted those missions are the same ones trying to 'fix' 40k with a ban/restriction list, then I have zero confidence they'll do it. They'll just break the game in their own special way, again. They can rewrite all the rules they like, fix whatever 'exploits' they think they've identified, and at the end of the day they can rest assured that -- between all of the people who actually show up for their tournament -- someone is going to game whatever new ruleset they've created. Someone will find where it can be exploited. Hell, half the people who attended Feast 2012 figured out that 27 Flamers/27 Screamers would dominate that event, and Feast specifically designed the rules that let that happen. Does that engender confidence that this will go any better?
Have fun with Feasthammer, I won't be coming back.
As some one who's been out of 40K for a while, but just recently got back in, I'm really sad to hear about the current state of 40K tournaments. I've been playing since 3rd edition, and the 6th Edition rule book is the best I've seen yet. (Not perfect, but better than 3rd, 4th, or 5th.) But the cheesy/OP/power builds out there, I'm really disheartened. Tournaments are one of my favorite things about games.
I think this sums it up best:
...You're constrained to playing the overpowered characters or the counters, rather than having free choice of all characters....
Just replace 'characters' with 'units'
I'm all for proposed idea of banning and restrictions. On exactly 'what' and 'how,' is obviously debatable.
...and I'm the king of spam. I always use 3 or something, even 3 heldrakes (I got them because I thought they were cool.) But I'm willing to accept a 0-1 restriction or ban on anything.
whigwam wrote: It's a shame it has come to this. GW have placed the bait, now the community gets to tear itself apart with everyone trying their hand at 'fixing' 40k.
Feast 2012 had some of the worst-balanced scenarios I've ever played in a GT. At a time when Necrons were at the height of their powers, they introduced 'table quarters' (in which Flyers were entirely non-scoring) in every mission in an attempt to rebalance the game. What happened? Maybe 1 Necron Scythewing actually showed up, then promptly got smacked into the low, low brackets, while Flamer/Screamer Daemon spam beat face on every other table. Mmmm...taste the balance!
Point being: if the people who drafted those missions are the same ones trying to 'fix' 40k with a ban/restriction list, then I have zero confidence they'll do it. They'll just break the game in their own special way, again. They can rewrite all the rules they like, fix whatever 'exploits' they think they've identified, and at the end of the day they can rest assured that -- between all of the people who actually show up for their tournament -- someone is going to game whatever new ruleset they've created. Someone will find where it can be exploited. Hell, half the people who attended Feast 2012 figured out that 27 Flamers/27 Screamers would dominate that event, and Feast specifically designed the rules that let that happen. Does that engender confidence that this will go any better?
Have fun with Feasthammer, I won't be coming back.
And looking at your sig I am SURE there is no bias in your accusations At least their making an attempt. It's early yet, give them a chance I say, or better yet stay home with your bad attitude.
I applaud their bravery. They are taking steps to make their event what they want, and offer to the players who want to attend. Lots of work and headaches.
Even mentioning comp seems to bring out the mob with pitchforks and torches. Running a comp system for a GT simply cannot be tolerated by the thousands of brave internet warriors who werent' going to attend anyway.
With several months headstart, I'm curious to see how the system evolves and what the final product is.
mikhaila wrote: I applaud their bravery. They are taking steps to make their event what they want, and offer to the players who want to attend. Lots of work and headaches.
Even mentioning comp seems to bring out the mob with pitchforks and torches. Running a comp system for a GT simply cannot be tolerated by the thousands of brave internet warriors who werent' going to attend anyway.
With several months headstart, I'm curious to see how the system evolves and what the final product is.
Truth. It's always applause worthy to put in tons of hours and time trying to make an event as fair and fun for all of your attendees as possible. It's also always applause worthy when a TO does it against the desires of an entrenched mob of internet goers. Sadly there'll always be people who gak talk the hard work of events with no regard for the people behind them.
I think Feast getting theirs out there early is positive, in that it shows a desire to see the community of potential attendees give feedback to them. The harshest critics sometimes come up with a few really powerful nuggets with which to make things even better. Also, I know Feast had to get this out to start trying to baseline things for their qualifiers.
Red Corsair wrote:And looking at your sig I am SURE there is no bias in your accusations At least their making an attempt. It's early yet, give them a chance I say, or better yet stay home with your bad attitude.
Do I sound like I was pleased with the rule change that enabled Tzeentch Daemons to dominate at FoB 2012? I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't, and I benefited from that more than anyone. I'm not biased in favor of rules that make the game easier for me...I'm biased against rules that attempt to change the nature of the game to better fit some TO's idealistic vision of how 40k should be. Especially since those efforts usually wind up screwing things up anyway.
Sure, as a Daemon player I'm a little miffed that FoB sees fit to ban a key component of the Daemons codex. But no more than I'd be if FoB were talking about banning Buffmanders, Ovesa, Wave Serpents, Baron or whatever the hell else they might have in mind. I can't say, 'Well, at least they're trying' because I think what they're trying to do is harmful to 40k. When they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement, I'm not going to 'give them a chance.' I'm going to say that I think Regional Homebrew 40k is a terrible idea, and they should stop.
Red Corsair wrote:And looking at your sig I am SURE there is no bias in your accusations At least their making an attempt. It's early yet, give them a chance I say, or better yet stay home with your bad attitude.
Do I sound like I was pleased with the rule change that enabled Tzeentch Daemons to dominate at FoB 2012? I thought I made it very clear that I wasn't, and I benefited from that more than anyone. I'm not biased in favor of rules that make the game easier for me...I'm biased against rules that attempt to change the nature of the game to better fit some TO's idealistic vision of how 40k should be. Especially since those efforts usually wind up screwing things up anyway.
Sure, as a Daemon player I'm a little miffed that FoB sees fit to ban a key component of the Daemons codex. But no more than I'd be if FoB were talking about banning Buffmanders, Ovesa, Wave Serpents, Baron or whatever the hell else they might have in mind. I can't say, 'Well, at least they're trying' because I think what they're trying to do is harmful to 40k. When they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement, I'm not going to 'give them a chance.' I'm going to say that I think Regional Homebrew 40k is a terrible idea, and they should stop.
Then your blind. 40k has been on a downward spiral ever since 6th hit. First necron fliers, then the FAQ nerfing solutions that didn't require snap shots that basically invalidated early tourney results IMO, then bale flamers and their FAQ fallowed by demons, tau and eldar. Even since eldar they managed to warp how armies ally into a complete mess.
I say the system has failed utterly thus far so good for them to make a change. Using THEIR OWN EVENT AND TIME. If you don't like it, don't go. If you have a better way then run your own event. Basically put up or shut up. Whining and saying leave it all alone is NOT the answer. At least not for FOB, since its their event I applaud them. It's nice to see some back bone from a TO for a change.
EDIT
Also, have you seriously missed the part where this is a LIVING document for an event 10+ months out?
Red Corsair wrote:Then your blind. 40k has been on a downward spiral ever since 6th hit. First necron fliers, then the FAQ nerfing solutions that didn't require snap shots that basically invalidated early tourney results IMO, then bale flamers and their FAQ fallowed by demons, tau and eldar. Even since eldar they managed to warp how armies ally into a complete mess.
I say the system has failed utterly thus far so good for them to make a change. Using THEIR OWN EVENT AND TIME. If you don't like it, don't go. If you have a better way then run your own event. Basically put up or shut up. Whining and saying leave it all alone is NOT the answer. At least not for FOB, since its their event I applaud them. It's nice to see some back bone from a TO for a change.
EDIT
Also, have you seriously missed the part where this is a LIVING document for an event 10+ months out?
"or whatever the hell else they might have in mind", "they're talking about a ban list I don't believe they have the competency to implement" - Read in context, these statements should make it fairly clear that I'm aware this is a 'living document'. Yes, they are working on it. And I think the work they've done so far shows they are clearly headed in the wrong direction.
Of course it is their event and they can do with it what they like. I am not questioning the FoB organizers' freedom of assembly. But now they have put their proposed rules changes out into the public sphere for comment. If FoB were looking for 100% positive feedback, they would have posted to an echo chamber instead of the Internet. They didn't. So, I am commenting from the perspective of a past attendee (and potential future attendee) saying that I think the changes are negative, and that they will deter me from returning to the event in the future. Hopefully if they hear enough feedback in that vein, they will reconsider the proposed changes. If not, then oh well, I won't be going. I have already said as much in my first post, but please feel free to keep putting the suggestion forward.
We aren't going to agree on the state of 6th Edition. You'll say it's not working, I'll say it is, you'll say I'm blind, I'll say something impolite, and we'll go back and forth like that forever. To me, it seems like a poor use of both of our time. I've said what I wanted to say about FoB's proposed rules changes, you and others apparently disagree, and that's OK.
My whole issue with this situation is that people have taken it upon themselves to "fix" the game when none of us know how the meta will develop, or what additional changes will be made between now and closer to the event.
The introduction of Destroyer weapons in and of itself will bring about the end of the current "deathstars" with re-rollable invuln saves. In addition, I firmly believe that, when taken together, the new fortification options presented in stronghold assault, and the inclusion of the super heavies listed in escalation will balance one another out once the new meta has a chance to mature. The biggest problem I saw with escalation was the limited choices of "lords of war", and the relative imbalance in power between those choices. However, every single army has access to destroyer weapons, void shields, and other options in the form of fortifications. And apparently forgeworld will be released updated information detailing how more of their products will interact with the new rules.
It just seems to me that people are seeing these two new supplements as stand alone items and not considering how they will interact with one another.
Ultimately, any arbitrary effort to "balance" a game for something as far out (time-wise) as these events is just a knee-jerk reaction and really smacks of an effort to force the community back into a 5th edition spam-list mentality.
I am thrilled. ScreamerStar and SeerStar are simply game breaking. Dataslated RipSide Spam is equally silly. I have no doubt that Waveserpants should be included too... but I see the reasonable line at being banning broken combinations not broken units. Otherwise the next "best unit" just marches up the list.
If someone wants to argue that a 2++ rerollable is somehow sporting or good for fostering an enjoyable tournament meta, you've lost credibility the second you start. Its just not a defendable position and I don't know of a major TO that hasn't come out on a podcast or forum and flat out stated that something should be done about it... enjoy the lunatic fringe.
Someone's "right" to field a given legal list does not trump the "right" of a TO to create a tournament that has a reasonably diverse playing field that gives players a greater sense of enjoyment and a more competitive feel. After all, GTs are really about fun and community for the majority of the participants and finally TOs are catering to that instead of the loudmouth WAAC players who want to dig in on a given list that is an easy button. The rest of us have a "right" to enjoy our time, not just take our models off the table or roll dice that will have no real impact on the outcome of the game.
I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.
There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.
These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.
Leth wrote: I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.
There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.
These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.
Great post.
I am very excited for the FoB comp, and look forward to it removing the solitaire lists. Note, this is not synonymous with hard lists, but the lists that when played well, make me feel like I may as well not be at the table. I have not been to a tournament since NOVA because of it, but now that someone is trying to do something about it I will definitely find a way out to Colorado to support FoB (if they actually stick with their stance). I really hope other TOs get on board as well, not necessarily adopting the same comp but by taking some action. Then again, events like 11th CO GT and DaBoyz seemed to have no attendance problems, so the incentive may still not be there.
Cross-posting from one of the other 1000 threads on the comp topic, but I REALLY liked Breng's %-based (Fantasy-esque) system… but at the end of the day I also applaud FoB simply because they are doing something to bring fun back.
Its really hard to feel for someone who runs a 2+ rerollable army. Those lists single handedly make the game so miserable for their opponents that at my store they have gotten the guys running the store the cold shoulder when asking for games, and made others think about what else they could be doing with their time and money than banging their heads against a screamerstar wall, and quit entirely.
No one should shed a tear when WAAC lists eat the nerf bat. And the "only build that's competitive in my whoooooollleee dex" argument dosent fly either. Mabye the only one YOUR competitive with.
Orock wrote: Its really hard to feel for someone who runs a 2+ rerollable army. Those lists single handedly make the game so miserable for their opponents that at my store they have gotten the guys running the store the cold shoulder when asking for games, and made others think about what else they could be doing with their time and money than banging their heads against a screamerstar wall, and quit entirely.
No one should shed a tear when WAAC lists eat the nerf bat. And the "only build that's competitive in my whoooooollleee dex" argument dosent fly either. Mabye the only one YOUR competitive with.
The difference is that some things that are getting the nerf bat have applications to non - 2+ reroll army lists. When you poop on a specific list, you end up inadvertently hurting the entire codex as a whole in the grand scheme. I have no problem when WAAC lists eat the bat, when when bat is wildly swung to punk not just that specific build, but the book as a whole, then there is a problem. It may be just because I'm a fluffy player who plays mono-god, but considering I don't reroll a single save in my army. Only if I get a 10 on the warpstorm do I even get a 2+ period. My list is competitive enough to be fun (I don't have a gun in it except for one daemon prince, two at 2k points), so tell me how that grimoire being around makes the list broken? I get the same saves as a necron wraith, with one less toughness. SO BROKEN, MUST NERF!
Leth wrote: I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.
There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.
These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.
Enjoy an exalt. This is really the big issue of the top end of an event trying to determine stuff when they're the minority of people showing up. Matt Brandt discussed this a lot, and while I disagree with a lot of what he comes up with (W-L scoring, encouraging puppy kicking, trying to develop a unified meta) I really am happy to see someone going in with the idea that the top table isn't really any more relevant than any other single table at the event. If catering to the top table guys makes it a worse event for everyone else, then forget them and run something that works out for most of the attendees.
I very much do not like how FoB is going about trying to fix the issue, but I am happy to see someone actually trying something versus poo-pooing it from the sidelines. To me, the solution chosen should try to fix at it's most general case (2+ re-rollables, strength D weapons, increasingly abusive allied synergies) instead of individual instances of it. So instead of banning the Grimoire, you'd say that all 2+ rerolls are 2+/4+ instead, strength D is weakened to S10 AP 1, characters can't join allied units, ect. That tends to fix the actual issues versus playing whack a mole with the latest build doing the same things.
Also, some of the point of the 2++ re-roll was as a response to the ridiculous amount of ignores cover firepower available from the Eldar and Tau books. If you do something about the re-roll spam, you should also do something about these issues, which are unfortunately more specific and also a bit more pernicious in how the game is laid out. Maybe more LOS blocking terrain, a move towards VP scoring vs. W/L scoring (with a caveat that tabling someone doesn't automatically give you max points) and an emphasis on scoring objectives might make these lists less powerful, thought you may still need to fix the obviously broken codex entries. It's the starting point of a discussion, not the ending one.
Matt1785 wrote: I think the Grimoire could be fixed instead of being banned outright... well, I don't want to use fixed because to some it doesn't need fixing.
Grimoire of True Names:
Dice roll 1 or 2 = -1 Invuln save
Dice roll 3, 4, or 5 = +1 Invuln save
Dice roll 6 = +2 Invuln save
Seems to make it harder to get the 2++ up, and even with Fateweaver, it may be tough to want to re-roll.
Outright bans will come off as very harsh, but modifications can work.
Make Farseers 0-1, cap Warlock units at squads of 5, make Waveserpents maybe 0-4.
Just thoughts running through my head for comps. Banning items could get rough, just maybe work them a bit.
If GW had a brain between them, im sure this is EXACTLY how it would have been written in the codex.
Leth wrote: I find it funny how people are turning this into a "Rights" debate for tournaments.
There is no warhammer constitution. If you dont want to go, vote with your wallet. Personally I had lost interest in a lot of tournaments just because I am not going to spend a couple hundred dollars to go to a tournament and not have fun.
These TO's invest huge amounts of money and time into their tournaments, they were seeing declining attendence among the more casual crowd. They were seeing declining fun with the game overall. They are trying to do something about it, for that I applaud their efforts. No one expects it to be perfect, but as long as it is better that is all I care about.
Um, if you're responding to my post I hope this is in agreement, as we said the same thing.
I hope the "no allying with yourself" policy applies to Space Marines as well, and not just xenos supplements. If I'm not mistaken the parent SM codex allows self-allying without using a supplement and not addressing that while shutting down powerful xenos combinations is pretty biased.
RiTides wrote: Thanks pretre, I guess this is the key part (what they're leaning towards with their restrictions currently):
The exact nature of these restrictions are already well into discussion and development, and will be available in their discrete form VERY soon. We know what the problem builds and combos are, now we are giving them the axe. Below, I will preview some of our changes:
———————————————————————————————————-
1.) The Grimoire of True Names from Codex: Daemons is banned
As of right now, this is the only true banning. We feel there is too much potential for abuse, and disagree with the effect it has on the army and the game.
2.) A few units will receive 0-1 status
For those of you who weren't around when 0-1 was a thing in codecies, means that a maximum of 1 of that unit may be taken per army. These are all units whose mass inclusion limits the potential lists in the game, and will thus be restricted. (As none of them are a problem on their own.) Rest assured that this will be a very short list, we are not interested in creating very restricted armies.
3.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex
There will be no more self-allying, no more cherry picking the best parts of a supplement while paying none of the costs, and no more force-org bloat from doing so.
4.) Dataslates will take an ally slot
Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies.
5.) The number of psychic mastery levels in an army will be limited
This change will eliminate a great many power combos from the game, and will stop a player from making a lot of lucky rolls on the psychic power tables to effectively win the game before it begins.
6.) Strength D is out, Lords of Battle are in
We feel the the Lords of Battle are not overpowered on their own, the fact that they give the opponent some advantages (bonus to seize, and especially victory points) balances out their fearsome firepower and powerful endurance. Strength D, however, is too powerful. This is well-known by every apoc player (and I am one of them), and has been the case for the past two editions. (Yes, it was even overpowered back in 5th, and it was much worse then.) There is some debate still going on, but it looks like S will become S:10, ordinance, ignores cover. That still makes it very powerful, but more in line with the price paid for the superheavy as well as it's other weapon options. In addition, superheavies will have to start on the table.
7.) Super-forts are gone, or at least downsized
No AV15, it will be AV14 instead. Every individual fortification from Stronghold Assault is allowed, but the “network” choices are simply too big and unwieldy to allow for tournament play. (As a consolation, they're pretty terrible, so I think it's OK.)
8.) Dedicated transport flyers will be limited
Flyers are not the be-all end-all of this edition, but all-flyer and mostly-flyer armies change the meta in uncomfortable ways and are notoriously unfun to play against.
———————————————————————————————————-
Everything on this is A-OK by me. The transcendent C'tan is still an issue but I like where this is going.
If the Grimoire is getting banned, I'd like to see some of the Tau one-per-army wargear get banned too, like that "ignore cover and here's TH and MH why not" thing.
All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).
This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.
Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
If this were 3rd edition, the list would include Rhinos. Every edition has something broken. Players just need to deal with it.
mikhaila wrote: I applaud their bravery. They are taking steps to make their event what they want, and offer to the players who want to attend. Lots of work and headaches.
Even mentioning comp seems to bring out the mob with pitchforks and torches. Running a comp system for a GT simply cannot be tolerated by the thousands of brave internet warriors who werent' going to attend anyway.
With several months headstart, I'm curious to see how the system evolves and what the final product is.
Not sure what's so new about it. Haven't they been changing up things for a long time (e.g. 1999+1 instead of "official" 2000 points, to name but one example)?
All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).
This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.
Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.
.
They might not win an award, but the actual games they play won't be fun.
You're missing the point. Give these people the overall award for all I care. Give em 10. It's not about the awards. Just make sure they don't waste anyone's time during the actual tournament. That is hte time and place where these kind of lists hurt the fun.
All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).
This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.
Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.
If this were 3rd edition, the list would include Rhinos. Every edition has something broken. Players just need to deal with it.
Doesn't work.
Points given by opposing players are always abused. If I run screamerstar and bomb all my opponents "friendly lists" I ensure they will not be in the top 10. If I run with 5 friends that all do the same, we essentially just cleared out the top spaces for the best generals which, most likely will be the screamer star builds. The conflict tournaments used that system and they were full of problems, there was one old guy that played in 3rd that didn't understand a lot of the then 4th rules and would bomb people because he felt that your units were "too good".
The only tournament system that works is if they make a banned list, and 0-1 or 0- whatever list for each army and restrict certain combos. Otherwise you might as well kiss the tournament scene good bye because the power builds that will result from this stupidity are going to make for completely unimaginative untactical short games.
I don't agree with the banning of Grimoire.
It's the latest potentially overpowered thing in 40k but its far from alone. I won't name them but we all know how powerful Eldar and Tau can be, slap in allies and they too become silly. Here we are talking multipe potentially over powering builds from these two races alone.
There are options that can deal with the Grimoire, for instance potentially a Wraith knight could keep it tied up all game, Missfortune messes with it. I won't even mention the amount of times i've failed to roll forewarning or dice go bad and you fail it anyway, I once failed it 2 rounds in a row with a reroll.
The list although powerful is not an instant win list either, You need the right build and tactics behind it to make it work, especially in a competitive environment.
To add a Rune Priest isn't fun either, nor are Tyranids, Neither are any other form of almost invulnerable deathstar, nor is MSU, and not to mention a Vindicare on a Quadgun. Nor is going second to Manticores, TFG's etc.. Mindstrike missiles. I'm sure there's more.
The list may force you to make adjustments to your competitive builds but surely this is the tactic applied anyway all along through the releases in 6th?
Just look at the past and where meta has shifted, its a meta shifting gimmick list, WraithSpam/CronAir, Helldrakes, Tau, Eldar..all have meta shifted lists, are we really turthly suggesting that Grimoire is more overpowered than other stages of the game have been.
Everything has a counter. You either choose to have a counter for something in your list or you don't.
Where I think it needs to stop is at Rulebook and codex. This can be supplemented by a list of allowed/banned Dataslates and Supplements. The New Fortifications and SuperHeavy books should remain out completely and should be considered optional additions to 40k.
If something is truely broken/overpowered then ban it, if something has upteen ways to deal with it in some shape or form not including the players own bad luck.. I think this is a missjudgment to ban it.
Remember, we have Tyranids coming and more books to follow, we really do not know what we will be competing with in the future, we've had the cries of overpoweredness heard from various releases/builds, why do we need to be banning or even comping now?
Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.
Danny Internets wrote: Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.
What if it could only improve Daemonic invul saves? I think a handful of single models might still be able to get a 2+ invul save, but that's probably what GW intended.
I think the tourney comp presented here is a pretty good one. It's a work in progress so give it a shot, evaluate the results after the tournament and then make modifications. Perhaps something that should've been restricted was missed and something else was restricted too harshly. In the end you'll have a pretty good system.
What I like about the approach Feast of Blades took is that they're allowing (pretty much) everything but tweaking it to be a lot more fair and enjoyable for all participants.
L0rdF1end wrote:Where I think it needs to stop is at Rulebook and codex. This can be supplemented by a list of allowed/banned Dataslates and Supplements. The New Fortifications and SuperHeavy books should remain out completely and should be considered optional additions to 40k.
If something is truely broken/overpowered then ban it, if something has upteen ways to deal with it in some shape or form not including the players own bad luck.. I think this is a missjudgment to ban it.
I think you're displaying the behaviour I hate the most. You don't own many (or any) large fortifications or superheavies and don't have any interest from a modelling perspective to buy them, so you'd just prefer to ban them all to save you the trouble. I mean, if they ended up being balanced but competitive, you might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that. However, in the same time you're talking about outright banning being a misjudgment in many cases (your own army is probably being restricted so you're feeling concerned), when in reality it's you who is making the misjudgments by having a predetermined opinion about superheavies and fortifications.
In short, why would we ban anything if we can just fix it to become balanced, or atleast as balanced as anything in this game usually goes (i.e. not very balanced)?
Danny Internets wrote: Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.
What if it could only improve Daemonic invul saves? I think a handful of single models might still be able to get a 2+ invul save, but that's probably what GW intended.
"I think you're displaying the behaviour I hate the most. You don't own many (or any) large fortifications or superheavies and don't have any interest from a modelling perspective to buy them, so you'd just prefer to ban them all to save you the trouble. I mean, if they ended up being balanced but competitive, you might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that. However, in the same time you're talking about outright banning being a misjudgment in many cases (your own army is probably being restricted so you're feeling concerned), when in reality it's you who is making the misjudgments by having a predetermined opinion about superheavies and fortifications".
What? lol.
Its a case of too much too fast, we have far too much going on in the game people can't keep up with time to read all the new rules, money to compete with the new additions.
To make the game fun/competitive there needs to be restrictions.
This is why I suggest Core Rulebook at Codex's, supplements to be allowed/banned per tournament event host preference.
You can't just start banning specific items from a Core codex.
While we are at it then, lets ban Fortune, Restrict Wave Serpents, limit Warlocks to 0-3. limit TFG's to 0-1. limit SkyRays to only fire 2 missiles a turn... You can't just keep banning/changing things. This game costs money and people have gone out and bought models that are legally listed in their codex.
We are in the same position as we have been throughout the time that I have played 40k at a competitive level at least. There's always something considered overpowered.
Please do not make assumptions, you don't know me therefore you cannot jump to the conclusions you have made.
You don't own many (or any) large fortifications or superheavies and don't have any interest from a modelling perspective to buy them, so you'd just prefer to ban them all to save you the trouble.
"Not loads of people do, but what's that got to do with anything, I'd quite happily go out and buy something if I wanted it for my list and it was legal. It has nothing to do with ownership, it has everything to do with making the game unmanageable from a TO's perspective and unbalanced from the points I have made in this post and before.
"You might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that"
Err. again, huge assumption which is completely untrue, how can you make such a statement when you have no clue who I am or what I buy and why...
However, in the same time you're talking about outright banning being a misjudgment in many cases (your own army is probably being restricted so you're feeling concerned),
Yes I run Screamercouncil, just one of my armies.
Am I concerned for my list... NO.
Am I concerned for the health of the game through banning without proper consideration on impact to the game, YES.
Would I attend any event that had COMP applied to main rulebook or main Codex's? NO I wouldn't.
"when in reality it's you who is making the misjudgments by having a predetermined opinion about superheavies and fortifications".
For competitive play there needs to be a stopping point, you cannot keep adding and supporting multiple additions to the game which are largely untested and potentially game breaking beyond counters.
I have so many old friends that used to play in 5th. They don't play any more because they can't keep up with all of the new rules from Codex's alone, addin supplements, dataslates, expansions on top of that, I doubt I'll ever see the return of these people again.
There are imbalances in the game, there have been for a long time, with each Codex release something is considered unbalanced or overpowered, there's nothing new here than what was the case with multiple stages within 6th.
Even 5th with the White Dwarf Daemons, no one considered banning them then and we certainly shouldn't be considering it now.
First of all you need to edit your post into a more readable format.
While we are at it then, lets ban Fortune, Restrict Wave Serpents, limit Warlocks to 0-3. limit TFG's to 0-1. limit SkyRays to only fire 2 missiles a turn... You can't just keep banning/changing things
That's one approach. It works well but it's a lot of work. ETC does that in Europe all the time. They restrict/ban specific items in specific books to get as detailed an AR system as possible.
You clearly have a problem with that approach, but your reasoning is flawed on so many levels it's not even funny. You're saying too much change too fast isn't good, so therefore all superheavies and fortifications should be banned. You continue and say you can't just ban stuff because the game costs money and people buy models. Well, a lot of people are buying superheavies now because escalation made them 100% legal, and you're the one who's saying that a 400 dollar model isn't legal. So which is it? Make up your mind please, and edit your posts a little.
It's good you atleast admitted you run a Screamerstar. It was already obvious you have a horse in the race (ban everything that counters my army and don't restrict my army at all please) but it shows some integrity that you admit it.
Well, you can't make TFGs 0-1 for a tournament. There would only be one attendee!!
All kidding aside... I love that people say you can't ban / restrict things in the face of the ETC that actually does it, and has been successful doing it for some time now. Really?
Does anyone know if this has developed at all? Are there any more changes posted? Are they tracking it on a forum or a blog or anything?
Wow, there really is no hate quite like Daemon hate...
Apparently we're not allowed to ever compete because we're not cool enough to have a really good toy.
And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.
Therion wrote: You don't own many (or any) large fortifications or superheavies and don't have any interest from a modelling perspective to buy them, so you'd just prefer to ban them all to save you the trouble. I mean, if they ended up being balanced but competitive, you might actually have to spend 200 or 300 bucks yourself to buy some, and you don't want that.
If allowing super heavies, titans, or fortifications forced players to spend considerable sums of money buying and fielding their own to counter them then I would argue that they aren't very balanced after all.
Experiment 626 wrote: And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.
Only if you played Fantasy.
Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.
Danny Internets wrote: Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.
What if it could only improve Daemonic invul saves? I think a handful of single models might still be able to get a 2+ invul save, but that's probably what GW intended.
It already does everything you say.
I think he's saying, make the "restriction" (if you could even call it that, it could even just be FAQ'ed that way) that the Grimoire only works on Demon saves and not Invulnerable saves gained from other sources, such as the 4++ psychic power. I believe that's how you grant the Screamers a 2++ with the Grimoire currently. If they could only be buffed to a 3++, that's still pretty durable but not as bad as a 2++ re-roll, and doesn't really alter any game mechanics any more than a simple clarification.
Mr Andy Chambers. Thanks, yeah the post is a little hard to read, sorry for that, silly IE for you not remembering my login status and not allowing me to quote.
Maybe I wasn't clear, you said -
"You're saying too much change too fast isn't good, so therefore all superheavies and fortifications should be banned. You continue and say you can't just ban stuff because the game costs money and people buy models".
Quite a major difference between the two statements.
Do you think Tournaments will mostly allow the new expansions?
More than likely not right?, Why do you think that might be?
Do you think most touranments will ban Grimoire/ 0-3 Warlocks or make other adjustments?
Probably not right? Why do you think that is?
Its the state of the game, some things are powerful, get used to it.
There's always going to be those nasty top tier lists that no one wants to play against.
Who knows what Nids will bring and other codex's to follow, we could see something truley broken.
I don't think it's right to consider banning anything or restricting anything until we have a fullset of 6th edition codicies.
We should let the latest army have its day/week/month until the next codex comes along and ruins its day.
Danny Internets wrote: Banning Grimoire is obviously over-reactive. Preventing its result from being re-rolled would completely address the perceived imbalance without removing a core item from the codex.
What if it could only improve Daemonic invul saves? I think a handful of single models might still be able to get a 2+ invul save, but that's probably what GW intended.
It already does everything you say.
I think he's saying, make the "restriction" (if you could even call it that, it could even just be FAQ'ed that way) that the Grimoire only works on Demon saves and not Invulnerable saves gained from other sources, such as the 4++ psychic power. I believe that's how you grant the Screamers a 2++ with the Grimoire currently. If they could only be buffed to a 3++, that's still pretty durable but not as bad as a 2++ re-roll, and doesn't really alter any game mechanics any more than a simple clarification.
This is exactly what I meant. I would much rather see minimal errata than banning whole wargear options or unit choices or even reworking how rerollable saves work. For example, if we said hit and run now requires the whole unit to have that USR to be able to usr it, does that help with the seer council at all?
Experiment 626 wrote: And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.
Only if you played Fantasy.
Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.
*looks at proposed comp in OP*
You might think that, but the only hard-core nerf batting going in this 'first draft' is apparently to tell Daemon players to go screw themselves at the door...
Each and every edition btw has had it's overly obnoxious, 0-fun-to-be-had armies which curb-stomped the game and made a mockery of 'competitive play'.
In 3rd edition, it was Ulthwe "Seer Congress" of 80 dudes w/re-rolled 4++ & Star Cannons, 3.5 CSM's with Iron Warriors gunlines or 'unkillable' Siren Song shenanigans and/or turn 1 Daemonbombs that rolled-up entire armies through consolidation, and Blood Angels Rhino rush being speedier than Dark Eldar!
In 4th ed we had the likes of Flying Circus Eldar, 'Nidzilla, Tau 'Fish of Fury' and Marines w/Tank-Hunting ass-cans out the rears.
In 5th we had Razorback spam, SW Longwang spam, entire armies of FnP Blood Angels, IG leafblower, Ork Bikernobz wound allocation games & of course the busted as feth Grey Knights. (who were also a complete & utter screw-you to Daemons btw, but the community seemed to think that was 100% okay and fluffy...)
In 6th we started off with Necron Flying Bakery & IG Vendetta spam, now we've got Eltau/Taudar, Seer Council of Doom, Screamerstar, etc...
"Competitive 40k" has always been about gaming whatever system is in place and curbstomping your opponent as ruthlessly as possible.
And yet what is the only army really being singled out right now as being the naughty, puppy-killing filth?
To just single out Daemons by banning the Grimoire entirely, limiting Mastery Lv's and such is petty and simply looks like you're a spoiled GK player who's pissed Daemons are no longer a near auto-win anymore.
But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.
But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.
I'm sure Daemons are not singled out but you're correct to a degree. It's because of what happened in Warhammer Fantasy. The first real DoC release made the army by far the strongest and most popular tournament army, and it wasn't a question like 3.5 CSM being the best or Razorspam/Leafblower being the best, it was in the extent that out of tournaments with 200 participants nearly the entire top20 could consist of the same army, and the overall winner was a Daemon army that had tooled his army to destroy other Daemons the best. Ever since DoC have had a bad name, and for good reason. I know because I was there, playing Daemons myself. I will say though that I think there have been much more unfair armies in the history of GW games than the Daemons of Chaos, but their popularity and the fact they autopiloted themselves to victories was the problem.
As far as the comp/no comp, restrict/no restrict, ban/no ban or a compromise of some type is concerned, it seems even in this thread there are a lot of people who can't seem to make up their mind. On one hand they don't want to allow certain things (HE HAS A TITAN!!!?? BAN IT!!!!), but on one hand they're against houserules and detailed army restrictions. Somehow, to some people, certain blanket bans are allright (yeah sure ban all fortifications and superheavies since they're clearly abusive!), but other blanket bans are absolutely outrageous (what do you mean you're banning allies and special characters?? that's bull****!!!!!).
To me there's only a couple logical ways to approach the situation.
A) Leave it as it is. GW makes the rules, releases supplements and expansions and army books and new editions of the game, and the players play with them. In short, no house rules of any kind, and if GW allows it, it's allowed. If the game sucks, don't play it at all.
B) Try to make the game more balanced. GW makes the rules, releases supplements and expansions and army books and new editions of the game, but the truth is that they don't do a very good job in balancing any of them, they never have, so you house rule everything that a committee of smart and experienced people can agree isn't balanced.
No matter how lazy you are with the composition ruling, and seriously blanket bans are all about being lazy and nothing else, you've already made the decision that you're going to want to play a custom edition of Warhammer 40K and not the one GW is selling. So why limit yourself to half-assed and poorly thought out limitations when you can go all the way, army book by army book, rulebook by rulebook, banning and/or restricting items and units that get exploited a lot?
All the talk about how the work is thankless and time consuming is absolute garbage, since once you've done the work the same composition scoring package can be used for the duration of the entire edition of the game. You only need to add something to it when a new supplement (including army books) gets released. It's all about getting organised, like the Warhammer players in Europe did.
Finally, and to me this is very important, none of the options are mutually exclusive. During a year where you attend a few major and multiple smaller tournaments, you can participate in competitions that use a 'better balance army restrictions package' and those that use no houserules of any kind. Just because the community agrees that the game isn't very balanced and decides to do something about it doesn't mean they can't still also hold tournaments where everything is allowed just for variety's sake. And if you're one of the guys who have a hardcore conviction towards either type of gaming you can choose to only participate in the tournaments that you do like instead of tournaments of all kinds.
Actually, we are the only ones who ruined the Emperor's day. Just saying....
The change of the grimoire to only changing the daemon invul would make sense, and you could still get a 2+ reroll if you get a 10 on the warpstorm, which is kinda few and far between.
Dude_I_Suck wrote: Actually, we are the only ones who ruined the Emperor's day. Just saying...
It's not our fault the Adeptus Plumber didn't check the Golden Toilet for the occasional leaky spot, or that when he got up the Emperor didn't remember to flush. Just saying...
Experiment 626 wrote: And it seems more people than we'd ever imagined got touched by a big meanie DoC in their no-no spot that one summer in '08.
Only if you played Fantasy.
Which was apparently the joke, since DoC is the Fantasy version. gak.
*looks at proposed comp in OP*
You might think that, but the only hard-core nerf batting going in this 'first draft' is apparently to tell Daemon players to go screw themselves at the door...
Each and every edition btw has had it's overly obnoxious, 0-fun-to-be-had armies which curb-stomped the game and made a mockery of 'competitive play'.
In 3rd edition, it was Ulthwe "Seer Congress" of 80 dudes w/re-rolled 4++ & Star Cannons, 3.5 CSM's with Iron Warriors gunlines or 'unkillable' Siren Song shenanigans and/or turn 1 Daemonbombs that rolled-up entire armies through consolidation, and Blood Angels Rhino rush being speedier than Dark Eldar!
In 4th ed we had the likes of Flying Circus Eldar, 'Nidzilla, Tau 'Fish of Fury' and Marines w/Tank-Hunting ass-cans out the rears.
In 5th we had Razorback spam, SW Longwang spam, entire armies of FnP Blood Angels, IG leafblower, Ork Bikernobz wound allocation games & of course the busted as feth Grey Knights. (who were also a complete & utter screw-you to Daemons btw, but the community seemed to think that was 100% okay and fluffy...)
In 6th we started off with Necron Flying Bakery & IG Vendetta spam, now we've got Eltau/Taudar, Seer Council of Doom, Screamerstar, etc...
"Competitive 40k" has always been about gaming whatever system is in place and curbstomping your opponent as ruthlessly as possible.
And yet what is the only army really being singled out right now as being the naughty, puppy-killing filth?
To just single out Daemons by banning the Grimoire entirely, limiting Mastery Lv's and such is petty and simply looks like you're a spoiled GK player who's pissed Daemons are no longer a near auto-win anymore.
But it's okay, Daemon players are used to being singled out as automatically being "that guy", because apparently we're the only ones who've ever ruined people's day.
Uh...sniff sniff?
I played GK in those day and Demon Armies were the most competitive against me because they came back on the table edge due to demonic infestation. Back in the day with these lists there was at least some kind of tactical counter giving you a chance. With the current Demonic reroll of 2++ there really is not much counter to it. It is just a matter of rolling a crap ton of dice then watching your demon playing opponent roll a crapton of dice to counter your roll then reroll what did not counter just to counter it. Its not a game of tactics at all. I played against it this weekend and forced 80 armour saves of which I caused one wound...one wound. I am not saying what FOB is doing is right or wrong (that is there call) but I can attest that it is just about pointless to play against that list unless your opponent has very bad luck. Tactics dont matter at all.
Every army gets the nerf bat now and then. DE were good now they suck, GK were incredible now they are average, Demons were good then got incredible, Biker Nobs were good now they are a liability, etc...etc....You make it sound like nobody else has ever had to face this and that your army choice has always sucked and now that it is unbeatable it should go untouched.
I played GK in those day and Demon Armies were the most competitive against me because they came back on the table edge due to demonic infestation. Back in the day with these lists there was at least some kind of tactical counter giving you a chance. With the current Demonic reroll of 2++ there really is not much counter to it. It is just a matter of rolling a crap ton of dice then watching your demon playing opponent roll a crapton of dice to counter your roll then reroll what did not counter just to counter it. Its not a game of tactics at all. I played against it this weekend and forced 80 armour saves of which I caused one wound...one wound. I am not saying what FOB is doing is right or wrong (that is there call) but I can attest that it is just about pointless to play against that list unless your opponent has very bad luck. Tactics dont matter at all.
Every army gets the nerf bat now and then. DE were good now they suck, GK were incredible now they are average, Demons were good then got incredible, Biker Nobs were good now they are a liability, etc...etc....You make it sound like nobody else has ever had to face this and that your army choice has always sucked and now that it is unbeatable it should go untouched.
The counter is to not shoot a bazillion things at the 1:36 fail deathstar. Its pretty bad when people are saying its too good because i shot my army at it and it only did a couple wounds. Its like saying my rhino is bad because I drove it next to the wraithknight and it got destroyed.
Tactics are the only thing that matter against a 800 point deathstar...... you have to play the anti deathstar game which is try to feed it as little as possible as you kill everything else on the board. Add to that, that the Screamerstar at least has a weakness to high toughness MC and being tarpitted, and its really not as bad as the seer council.
And calling the ban of the grimoire the same as Edition/Codex changes is pretty silly because one is the game changing as a whole, and the other is a T.O. deciding that a piece of wargear shouldn't be in his tournament.
The 2++ re-rollable is an issue with how the game plays in a tournament setting, but if you really look at it, daemons aren't dominating the game, they are just making games that aren't enjoyable to play in terms of tactics.
We will have to wait and see how the packet turns out but as the first draft looks, it looks overly harsh on the daemon builds while letting other slide; which should ritefully make daemon players mad, the army wasn't dominating every tournament it was just making games unfun.
The most dumb part of the old Daemon vs Grey Knight battles was that all daemons had eternal warrior, which made the force weapons irrelevant.
The biggest problem I have with the FoB comp system they have is that daemons got singled out. Limit daemons grimoire to 0-1.. Wait a sec, it is. The only other logical option is to make it 0-0? I think not. If that's the case, remove all relics/artifacts/signature systems from all books That would even the field a little more than just scalpeling out one.
Singling out one codex puts all of the players on the defensive. Core rulebook rules being tweaked: sure, go on ahead, it affects everyone. Army books being changed: heck no, it applies bias to an entire codex, giving people fuel for their fiery torches and pitchforks.
The problem I have with limits etc is it just makes the second best thing the new best thing. Its almost impossible to "completely balance" warhammer. They dont produce it that was and its just hard.
I wish they would actually playtest a bit before releasing dumb stuff like formations etc. 4 detachment lists... come on...
Some of these are changes that needed to happen, others are to heavy handed.
The changes they made to D-weapons, Detachments/allies, and using supplement books to self ally was way to silly. These are changes that needed to happen and I feel most tournies will follow suit with.
banning grimoire and enforcing 0-1 units? This starts to have alot of strange consequences.
On the one hand:
Rerollable 2+ saves should never have been allowed to exist by any game mechanic EVER, especially invulnerable saves.
Things like Strength D should not exist in any form, let alone standard games of 40k.
The allies thing is so far out of hand that its getting rid of the last semblance of normal looking armies in the game, as opposed to the mathematical exercises in combat calculus we see now.
But on the other hand:
No one was talking about toning down the leafblower armies, hamminator spam, or long wang missle fests back when those armies made taking a xenos army to an event mean a day long poop sandwitch eating session.
No one really gave two craps when SM variants had the best means of holding objectives and nearly all xenos armies were relying on T3 derps wearing Tshirts to do this. But now unkillable (but still tar pitable) scoring units are suddenly an issue when its Xenos doing it.
Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.
So, I think something has to be done, but I feel pretty unmoved by the part of the community this is most directly affecting.
Phazael wrote: Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.
It seems completely consistent and logical that people who maintained that comp wasn't needed when the game was well-balanced now advocate for comp when they feel the game is poorly balanced. What's hilarious about people wanting 40k to be viable as a competitive game?
On the one hand:
Rerollable 2+ saves should never have been allowed to exist by any game mechanic EVER, especially invulnerable saves.
Things like Strength D should not exist in any form, let alone standard games of 40k.
The allies thing is so far out of hand that its getting rid of the last semblance of normal looking armies in the game, as opposed to the mathematical exercises in combat calculus we see now.
But on the other hand:
No one was talking about toning down the leafblower armies, hamminator spam, or long wang missle fests back when those armies made taking a xenos army to an event mean a day long poop sandwitch eating session.
No one really gave two craps when SM variants had the best means of holding objectives and nearly all xenos armies were relying on T3 derps wearing Tshirts to do this. But now unkillable (but still tar pitable) scoring units are suddenly an issue when its Xenos doing it.
Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.
So, I think something has to be done, but I feel pretty unmoved by the part of the community this is most directly affecting.
Agreed with phazeal on all counts. I've been sucked into the void by a vortex wielding Space Marine captain with a jump pack in Rogue Trader, Blasted off the board by CML Terminators and Design rule Land raiders with 20 heavy bolters in second edition, Run over by rhino rushing death company that took 100 shots to kill one guy in 3rd edition, got blasted by cheap dreadnoughts and predators in 4th (though I'll admit I never used my own skimmer spam), and got blown off the board by superior fire power of imperial armies in 5th. Now we get to 6th, and my Eldar have something really good (I'll even call it too good) and suddenly the calls of "ban it" go up.
It's funny what happens when the Emperor's nancy boys can't just point and say die and make it so.
Phazael wrote: Finally, and most hilariously, the same personalities who spent the last decade driving soft scores out of the game are the ones pushing for selective bans all of a sudden. Careful what you wish for.
It seems completely consistent and logical that people who maintained that comp wasn't needed when the game was well-balanced now advocate for comp when they feel the game is poorly balanced. What's hilarious about people wanting 40k to be viable as a competitive game?
Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?
Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.
Experiment 626 wrote: Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?
Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.
While I agree with the first part.. the last part not so much. Do you really think the community cleanly divides itself along "Imperial" and "Xenos" lines like some grimdark West Side Story dance number? I've know dozens of 40k players over the past 15 years and only two players with multiple armies have been only Imperial or only Xenos... the vast majority who could afford multiple forces did both.
Nice to see from 40kGlobal podcast that their line of thought is aligned to mine, meaning we expect to see in the UK no banning of anything available from a Codex.
We expect to see tournaments run with: Rulebook/Codex/Supplements.
We expect to see the following not allowed in most tournaments:
Dataslates/Formations/Superheavy & Fortification expansions.
Banning Grimoire is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.
I was looking to attend a US tournament like Adepticon or Nova next year. I won't be flying over if they start getting heavy with Comp and I should imagine this will be the same for most guys in the UK.
Experiment 626 wrote: Because 40k never was "well balanced" at any point maybe?
Or maybe that's its ALWAYS been about exploiting the silly/OTT units/abilities to their fullest & roflstomping your opponent?
Funnily enough though, it always seems to be the Imperials who beg for comp when Xenos get their OTT tricks, but laugh it off as unneeded when they're the ones who are tops.
While I agree with the first part.. the last part not so much. Do you really think the community cleanly divides itself along "Imperial" and "Xenos" lines like some grimdark West Side Story dance number? I've know dozens of 40k players over the past 15 years and only two players with multiple armies have been only Imperial or only Xenos... the vast majority who could afford multiple forces did both.
Perhaps a majority of players do over time end up owning both Imperial/Xenos sides, but look at the vocal cries ever since 3rd edition;
- Once the likes of Eldar, Craftworld Eldar, 3.5 CSM's, Necrons & Tau hit the scene, the cries for comp intensify because of their abusive builds.
Though SW's & BA's are also very well off and somewhat ran the show up until the likes of the later books, (3.5 CSM's, Craftworld, Tau, 'Crons), most cries for comp early on were shouted down as unneeded, or else heavily favoured Imperial armies.
- Comp for the most part dies off in 4th... until 'Nidzilla, Fish of Fury & Flying Circus rear their ugly heads.
- 5th is the Imperial edition of utter dominance. SW's, BA's, Leafblower, GK's, Hammernator spam, Razorback spam... Xenos pretty much get to either sit out the entire edition, or else get to enjoy cutting their teeth to little effect against all the Imperial love.
Comp however disappears entirely! And anyone who brings up the subject is typically called out for being a noob/whiner by the same vocal crowd who're now crying for comp's return.
- 6th in the early days is the 'Flyer edition' with Flying Bakery & Vendetta spam, but has quickly shifted to Xenos domination. Now suddenly we absolutely need comp to 'fix' the game...
I agree that things like Strength-D, Formations and fortresses really don't belong in 'normal' 40k without prior agreements between players as to what/how much will be used. It's also probably better left to the 'middle weight' games of 2k - 2500pts or so where it's easier to bring more counters, AND, games can also be played on slightly larger tables such as 8'x4' or 10'x6'.
But right now, we're getting comps that aren't looking at just being logical & using common sense. We're getting comp that's adding in additional comp geared specifically at mainly Xenos armies! (but Imperials get to keep all of their toys thus far)
So yes, from my perspective, there is and has always been an underlying divide of Imperial players having an air of entitlement about them in competitive play.
Just adding my wishlist of restrictions, doubt these will ever occur, but would in my opinion make games more fun:
Restricties:
- The Battle Brothers rule "can be joined by Allied Independent Character" is removed.
- Your Force may only fill up the options of a single standard force organisation chart. This means a combination of primary + allied detachment can at most have 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support.
- Only 2 vehicles/vehicle squadrons/monstrous creatures chosen as a single Force Organisation choice with the same primary weapon can be included.
- The maximum reroll on a save is a 4+.
- A maximum of one Flying units and/or Flying monstrous Creatures per 400 points spend is allowed.
- Dataslates are not allowed.
- Escalation is not allowed.
- Forgeworld is not allowed.
- Stronghold assault is not allowed.
DutchSage wrote: Just adding my wishlist of restrictions, doubt these will ever occur, but would in my opinion make games more fun:
Restricties:
- The Battle Brothers rule "can be joined by Allied Independent Character" is removed.
- Your Force may only fill up the options of a single standard force organisation chart. This means a combination of primary + allied detachment can at most have 2 HQ, 6 Troops, 3 Elites/Fast Attack/Heavy Support.
- Only 2 vehicles/vehicle squadrons/monstrous creatures chosen as a single Force Organisation choice with the same primary weapon can be included.
- The maximum reroll on a save is a 4+.
- A maximum of one Flying units and/or Flying monstrous Creatures per 400 points spend is allowed.
- Dataslates are not allowed.
- Escalation is not allowed.
- Forgeworld is not allowed.
- Stronghold assault is not allowed.
The 2++ re-rollable is an issue with how the game plays in a tournament setting, but if you really look at it, daemons aren't dominating the game, they are just making games that aren't enjoyable to play in terms of tactics.
.
Some army is always going to dominate, there is no need to change that, but your reason is the BEST reason to change something, it makes a game UNFUN. At the core of it, past all the prizes and prestige, tournaments are really about fun. So you already made the best argument for change.
All awards get a comp score. Weight it appropriately. Comp score is given by the opposing player. Said player has to justify to a judge why the score is given, if the judge feels it is unfair. Overruling results in a forfeiture of gained points by player ( a stick to avoid bad losers gakking someone on comp).
This will encourage people to bring fun lists. Give bonus points for fluff etc.
Someone shows up with a screamer star or a seercouncilstar or 3 riptides or 3 helldrakes or wave serpent spam...they might go undefeated, but they won't win an award.
If this were 3rd edition, the list would include Rhinos. Every edition has something broken. Players just need to deal with it.
Doesn't work.
Points given by opposing players are always abused. If I run screamerstar and bomb all my opponents "friendly lists" I ensure they will not be in the top 10. If I run with 5 friends that all do the same, we essentially just cleared out the top spaces for the best generals which, most likely will be the screamer star builds. The conflict tournaments used that system and they were full of problems, there was one old guy that played in 3rd that didn't understand a lot of the then 4th rules and would bomb people because he felt that your units were "too good".
The only tournament system that works is if they make a banned list, and 0-1 or 0- whatever list for each army and restrict certain combos. Otherwise you might as well kiss the tournament scene good bye because the power builds that will result from this stupidity are going to make for completely unimaginative untactical short games.
No I get it, you want people to judge the fairness of an army that potentially just curb stomped them, then have a judge determine whether each players choice is fair.
What you are suggesting is just a waste of time, naive and needlessly complicated where a simple restriction list eliminates all that needless book keeping. Getting the numbers from game results is one of the biggest problems in tournaments.
Ravenous D wrote: No I get it, you want people to judge the fairness of an army that potentially just curb stomped them, then have a judge determine whether each players choice is fair.
What you are suggesting is just a waste of time, naive and needlessly complicated where a simple restriction list eliminates all that needless book keeping. Getting the numbers from game results is one of the biggest problems in tournaments.
Keep it simple stupid.
Except that restrictions & ban lists tend to become highly opinionated and more often than not are biased against certain armies.
If Feast goes ahead and bans the Grimoire outright for example, yet leaves Seetstar fairly unmolested, it might discourage a lot of people from considering Daemons at all thereby effectively removing an entire army.
Or Daemon players might in turn bring their hard-counter to Seestar by packing a 'Thirster or Kipper w/Doomstone. Sure the Ld10 Farseer is pretty safe, but those Ld8 Warlocks, (who are the true workhorses of the Seerstar due to their billion or so Augments), will pop at a pretty frightening rate. What happens when Eldar players, (and everyone else with lower Ld characters), bitch about their unit being mostly auto-wiped within a couple turns by the new 'broken' Daemon item?
Do we suddenly just ban Hellforged Artifacts in general or even ban Exalted Rewards altogether?!
"Except that restrictions & ban lists tend to become highly opinionated and more often than not are biased against certain armies."
This my concern as well and I don't want to see it become en vogue. I could definitely see the xenos crowd wanting to nerf daemons, it being their worst counter.
Ravenous D wrote: No I get it, you want people to judge the fairness of an army that potentially just curb stomped them, then have a judge determine whether each players choice is fair.
What you are suggesting is just a waste of time, naive and needlessly complicated where a simple restriction list eliminates all that needless book keeping. Getting the numbers from game results is one of the biggest problems in tournaments.
Keep it simple stupid.
Except that restrictions & ban lists tend to become highly opinionated and more often than not are biased against certain armies.
If Feast goes ahead and bans the Grimoire outright for example, yet leaves Seetstar fairly unmolested, it might discourage a lot of people from considering Daemons at all thereby effectively removing an entire army.
Or Daemon players might in turn bring their hard-counter to Seestar by packing a 'Thirster or Kipper w/Doomstone. Sure the Ld10 Farseer is pretty safe, but those Ld8 Warlocks, (who are the true workhorses of the Seerstar due to their billion or so Augments), will pop at a pretty frightening rate. What happens when Eldar players, (and everyone else with lower Ld characters), bitch about their unit being mostly auto-wiped within a couple turns by the new 'broken' Daemon item?
Do we suddenly just ban Hellforged Artifacts in general or even ban Exalted Rewards altogether?!
Well feast did mention they are figuring out how to cap psykers, Like only allowing 1 or 2 rolls per chart per psyker which would mostly deal with screamstar and jetstar.
People who were happy when *their* armies dominated are the ones calling for comp now etc etc
I only joined in sixth with my Orks, and I'm pretty damn keen on comping stupid gak out of the game.
As a Tau player, I fully agree. 5 Riptide lists are just as bad as Screamerstar, Wave Serpent Spam, etc. Dataslates were the final nail in the coffin for balance IMO - seriously, a Riptide that doesn't take a FOC, with Broadsides that also don't take FoC? Ridiculous.
As far as tournaments go, this (Comp) needed to happen.
Dakkamite wrote: I'm pretty keen on the Void relay network myself. Real game changer, for the better IMO
Void shields alone are a game changer for 100pts. The void network is just too much at 9 void shields and a 4+ cover save line that makes flamers stupid for 340pts.
Dakkamite wrote: I'm pretty keen on the Void relay network myself. Real game changer, for the better IMO
Void shields alone are a game changer for 100pts. The void network is just too much at 9 void shields and a 4+ cover save line that makes flamers stupid for 340pts.
They relay also has hilarious consequences for your cover saves, don't forget!
I think void shields would change the game way more than D. If you think D was bad, trying going up against any kind of long range firebase protected by 3-9 void shields.
I haven't been able to access the FoB bans page since like the day it was put up. Have they deleted it and back-pedalled?
As a Tau player, I fully agree. 5 Riptide lists are just as bad as Screamerstar, Wave Serpent Spam, etc. Dataslates were the final nail in the coffin for balance IMO - seriously, a Riptide that doesn't take a FOC, with Broadsides that also don't take FoC? Ridiculous.
I feel worse for you than I do for me. Tau players tended to get hated on as though they were taking maximum riptides even if they aren't. I know I'm guilty of doing that myself.
They relay also has hilarious consequences for your cover saves, don't forget!
I think void shields would change the game way more than D. If you think D was bad, trying going up against any kind of long range firebase protected by 3-9 void shields.
If an assault and a shooty army both take void shields, the assault army is the one that gets the real advantage. Not only do we not give a damn that *they* are protected by shields, but going off of RAW (plus common sense) their own shooting against my units would be stopped by their own shields once I actually get into melee range.
Even if the game degenerated a bit into Void firebases, at least the 'alpha strike' is delayed a hell of a lot by these shields, giving the players time to like actually do gak before 9001 manticore missiles rain down on their stuff and blow it to hell.
I admit I'm terribly biased towards melee armies, (as I'd be towards shooty if this was choppyhammer) but I still think that Voids do more good than harm. Network might be a bit much, but I'm too tempted by the idea of Burna wagon + promy pipes to be objective on the matter
i think its a good thing. i think there has to be balance.
this goes back to every comment that has ever been said about the balance of 6th.
There isn't.
Change it.
And the reality is, if a couple of demon players get butt hurt because grimoire is banned, and they are forced to play a different game, then so be it.
will bans and changes just make way for another top tier? Absolutely it will. the reality to it is that this will always happen, but the question that needs to be looked at is:
will the proposed changes to their organizational rules reduce the disparity from the top tier now and the rest of the field?
there have always been great armies, there have always been the best there is, but they weren't unanswerable. there were ways to beat them, and the power level gap was there, but was it really as bad as it is now?
The answer to that question is no.
even at the height of the GK's reign, there were answers and there are plenty of tournament results that backs that up, with GKs being hugely played, but not hitting the coveted 1st place at an equal level.
but the new stuff, the tau, elder, and demons, its just SO FAR beyond the power curve, that there really isn't much that can handle it.
if those changes lower that gap, and narrow it a little more, then my hats off to them for trying.
i mean really, look at it like this. the game right now is so far from balanced and fethed up that no one i know debates this.
so if the game is this fethed up, then try to fix it. i mean, whats the worst that can happen at this point? something else get broken? its not like we haven't been dealing with that since 6th broke.
Dakkamite wrote: Why the hell is this lumped in with escalation? Aside from the superheavy fortress its a damn good addition to the game
Because of the "network" fortifications which are more of the same "feel free to ignore the FOC limits and take whatever you want" nonsense as the Riptide/Broadside idiocy. And then half of the new single fortifications have no model, so we can expect endless arguments over whether or not those promethium pipes are MFA or not. I'm not sure I agree with that policy, but I can understand why people would want to just ban the whole book instead of trying to figure out which things from it are reasonable enough to include.
Dakkamite wrote: If an assault and a shooty army both take void shields, the assault army is the one that gets the real advantage. Not only do we not give a damn that *they* are protected by shields, but going off of RAW (plus common sense) their own shooting against my units would be stopped by their own shields once I actually get into melee range.
That's assuming that you have a pure melee army with no shooting elements. If you brought any long-range firepower then giving the gunline void shields means that your own shooting is completely negated and you have no hope of killing those Manticores/Riptides/etc before they start dropping pie plates on all of your most important stuff. So it might be a boost to absolute pure melee armies, but it's a pretty big nerf to any kind of hybrid melee/shooting army with a strong melee component.
Sc077y wrote: i think its a good thing. i think there has to be balance.
this goes back to every comment that has ever been said about the balance of 6th.
There isn't.
Change it.
And the reality is, if a couple of demon players get butt hurt because grimoire is banned, and they are forced to play a different game, then so be it.
will bans and changes just make way for another top tier? Absolutely it will. the reality to it is that this will always happen, but the question that needs to be looked at is:
will the proposed changes to their organizational rules reduce the disparity from the top tier now and the rest of the field?
there have always been great armies, there have always been the best there is, but they weren't unanswerable. there were ways to beat them, and the power level gap was there, but was it really as bad as it is now?
The answer to that question is no.
even at the height of the GK's reign, there were answers and there are plenty of tournament results that backs that up, with GKs being hugely played, but not hitting the coveted 1st place at an equal level.
but the new stuff, the tau, elder, and demons, its just SO FAR beyond the power curve, that there really isn't much that can handle it.
if those changes lower that gap, and narrow it a little more, then my hats off to them for trying.
i mean really, look at it like this. the game right now is so far from balanced and fethed up that no one i know debates this.
so if the game is this fethed up, then try to fix it. i mean, whats the worst that can happen at this point? something else get broken? its not like we haven't been dealing with that since 6th broke.
Okay then let's also ban the following:
Ignore Cover
Joining Riptides
Supporting Fire
Serpent Shields
Blade Storm
Dakkamite wrote:
If an assault and a shooty army both take void shields, the assault army is the one that gets the real advantage. Not only do we not give a damn that *they* are protected by shields, but going off of RAW (plus common sense) their own shooting against my units would be stopped by their own shields once I actually get into melee range.
Even if the game degenerated a bit into Void firebases, at least the 'alpha strike' is delayed a hell of a lot by these shields, giving the players time to like actually do gak before 9001 manticore missiles rain down on their stuff and blow it to hell.
I admit I'm terribly biased towards melee armies, (as I'd be towards shooty if this was choppyhammer) but I still think that Voids do more good than harm. Network might be a bit much, but I'm too tempted by the idea of Burna wagon + promy pipes to be objective on the matter
If the shots originate within 12" of the void shield generator, you're not protected by it. Also, you can't use the relay with vehicles. It definitely benefits "void firebases" more than assault armies, it encourages you just to bring long range (possibly interceptor-skyfire) things that can castle and deploy in one corner. I don't think you realize how silly things might get with 9 void shields on each side of the table without D to clear them out.
Sc077y wrote: i think its a good thing. i think there has to be balance.
this goes back to every comment that has ever been said about the balance of 6th.
There isn't.
Change it.
And the reality is, if a couple of demon players get butt hurt because grimoire is banned, and they are forced to play a different game, then so be it.
will bans and changes just make way for another top tier? Absolutely it will. the reality to it is that this will always happen, but the question that needs to be looked at is:
will the proposed changes to their organizational rules reduce the disparity from the top tier now and the rest of the field?
there have always been great armies, there have always been the best there is, but they weren't unanswerable. there were ways to beat them, and the power level gap was there, but was it really as bad as it is now?
The answer to that question is no.
even at the height of the GK's reign, there were answers and there are plenty of tournament results that backs that up, with GKs being hugely played, but not hitting the coveted 1st place at an equal level.
but the new stuff, the tau, elder, and demons, its just SO FAR beyond the power curve, that there really isn't much that can handle it.
if those changes lower that gap, and narrow it a little more, then my hats off to them for trying.
i mean really, look at it like this. the game right now is so far from balanced and fethed up that no one i know debates this.
so if the game is this fethed up, then try to fix it. i mean, whats the worst that can happen at this point? something else get broken? its not like we haven't been dealing with that since 6th broke.
Okay then let's also ban the following:
Ignore Cover
Joining Riptides
Supporting Fire
Serpent Shields
Blade Storm
Well if we are going that far let's ban shooting and assault all together. That is even and fair and we just get to stare at each others pretty armies moving around the board.
BRB, Escalation,and Stronghold are what we have. The game is evolving so lets play it. I am not a fan of banning items or groups (go ahead and take a data slate as I will concentrate on the part of your army that counts) but I am in favor of generic Comp. TO's can adapt and limit with comp systems. JMHO
