So the internet has exploded over the past week. Two tournaments (Feast of Blades and Las Vegas Open) have announced they will be banning, restricting, or modifying certain elements of 40k. I have been objecting to this on my FLGS Facebook group, but decided to make a post here that more clearly articulates my points. Hopefully TO's will read this carefully. For more info read here:
http://www.3plusplus.net/2013/12/feast-of-blades-will-be-enacting-restrictions-and-bans/
http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2013/12/11/las-vegas-open-poll-results-and-where-were-going-in-the-midst-of-the-current-40k-changes/

NOTE: FoB hasn't come out with the full list of restrictions, so this article will likely be updated.
ALSO NOTE: I am not trying to bash any of the TO's. I realize that running a tournament of this size is CRAZY, and I thank you for the hard work you are putting into it!

I'll try to keep this short...

1. Why the Hate on Daemons?
First and foremost, I couldn't help but notice that nearly any ban or restriction mentioned hurt Daemons in some way. Limit on Psykers? Check! Grimoire banned? Check! Be'Lakor not allowed or uses up an entire ally slot? Check! In short, it seemed to me that for some reason TO's thought Daemons were annoying to play against and so used this ban/restrict list to vent their frustration.

2. Voting for Things In/Out is BAD
This is directed towards the LVO. I am not trying to bash you guys (I watch and enjoy all your batreps), but think about it: If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?! I think asking for player input was cool, but allowing them to vote pretty much just let them say "I don't wanna face this, this, this..." and check the appropriate boxes. People will 90% of the time vote AGAINST what hurts them, that just makes sense. You won't find many Ork players saying that a 2++ rerollable is OK. You cite the approval of FW as support for voting, but I couldn't help notice that FW was voted down in the poll on Dakka (With less than 50% voting for it's inclusion), which actually means the community doesn't want it (Surprise!) but the last BAO played out beautifully with FW. My point is this: People don't want FW accordig to the Dakka Poll, but you guys are running it anyway(it wasn't even a question on the official poll sent out). So it seems that voting here seems kind of trivial as voting against FW is irrelevant but voting against Lords of War and Dataslates matters

3. Where Does It End?
Once you start cutting things where do TO's draw the line for what can be cut? I noticed that Allies were in the Dakka poll recently? C'mon now, it's a year and a half after 6th's release and yet we are talking of canning them? TO's are treading on very dangerous ground here, and there are already people saying they will not attend any tournament with ban lists/restrictions. It's not because they are powergaming morons with little man syndrome that forces them to play the most broken thing, but because they don't want the game changed. 40k has never been balanced. Read about 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. I'm very afraid for how far this crusade on broken units/combos will go. My concern is that TO's are jumping on the ban-wagon(play on words intended) and just start scratching tons of things out. It may seem like over-reaction, but look at the Dakka poll...alot of people voted against Allies AND Supplements. That's crazy! That destroys alot of people's armies and means they either can't play or have to buy a whole bunch of new models.


Those are the main three points. I'll update this if I think of more, but in short I think it is important to note that including everything will shift the meta. Of course it will. But by including everything you already take out alot of power combos. Will people be as likely to run Screamerstar if they see a Shadowsword with every IG player? And before everyone yells "You're saying fix broken units with more broken units" super heavies can be killed. They can be affected by psychic powers. Walkers/Gargantuan Creatures can be locked in combat. They give you VP's. You get a special Warlord Table to roll on that REALLY helps you kill them. All sD weapons are blasts so include a flier or two. FMC's are also fantastic for munching through this big guys. Oh and Grav-Cannons? Sure they only do a HP on a 6, but with 15 shots that are Prescienced and rerolling armor pen you can bet you'll take out 4 or so HP's. And that's without factoring in Missile Launchers. Smart players will make balanced lists and beat cheese through strategy. Look at Ben Mohlie's dual Guardian/Wraithknight list. It didn't seem like much to the internet, but he played well and won.

Anyways that's my rant. Do you guys agree? Or do you think that we should start banning OP things? Both TO's for both the LVO and FoB have said they have cool ideas for the future, so I guess we'll see...Keep calm and keep playing with your plastic manbarbies!



And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is? Why are they horrified that a weapon called a Titan Killer killed a Titan? That's like being shocked that a Helldrake killed Space Marines...
And of course you don't get Invulns. Having a cute little Iron Halo won't save you from a shot meant to cripple a Titan... The Revenant has 2 max cup sizes(Double D's). It shouldn't be shocking that a 900 point model can kill two 180 point models? Anyways sorry if I came off as angry(I'm not) or unorganized(I am!). Lemme know what you guys think in the comments!

I see your points, but on point 2 I think your being hyper critical. The game just got hit with more than one game changing supplement, and everyone freaks out in the beginning. It's unfortunate in the timing for the LVO, otherwise we wouldn't see their poll and restrictions. The people who bought their tickets ahead of time to go play in LV were not expecting titans to be "normal" gameplay, nor could they expect so many random data slates to be released. Therefore, why should the people who bought the ticket for the LVO, who want to play competitively, be expected to play with titans? They bought the ticket before they could play with titans and now that they are "normal", we expect them to go spend time and money on them so they can stay competitive? The rules the LVO have set up for their tournament are by no means the end all of rules for all tournaments. They are simply a rule set for the people who could not anticipate the surprises GW threw at us and was the most effective way the TO's thought they could give everyone traveling the most enjoyment. Why complain about 1 tournament you might not even be attending anyways? Why complain about rules most of the people attending the tournament want? No use complaining about it. Move on, and warhammer will work itself out in time. As a side note, I do agree with your points, but everything will work out. Fliers were overpowered and now are normal. Titans will become the same in time. Thanks for reading and nothings personal!

3. Where Does It End?

It ends when GW makes a game that doesn't require such fixes... 6th is by far the most insane edition of 40k since 2nd edition, so it's not surprising you have to reign it in

Did you ever stop and wonder if there are actually rational reasons as to why certain things have been banned, and perhaps maybe the people attending these events aren't just donkey-caves looking for every conceivable way of gaining an advantage?

The 2++ re-rollable is absolutely drop dead broken, almost irrefutably one of the dumbest conventions that's been devised since I've played 40k and there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

Noone with a rational train of thought defends the 2++ re-rollable. It is almost a guarantee that your unit is impossible to kill this turn.

Escalation and Stronghold Assault can benefit the armies of everybody and yet nobody wants to see them within a million miles of a tournament setting because they are not even close to balanced. They're terribly written, maybe decent for a fluffy campaign but they have no place in a tournament environment where the players want the rough 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill and 1/3 list writing balance to stay as fine as possible for a fair and enjoyable environment.

With the supplements I would easily say that the balance shifts way out of place, with list writing going to about 50-70%, luck hitting 20%~ and skill being a low factor indeed. With absurd, moronic combos like guided Revanant Titans some games just become an auto-win providing you don't fluff a ton of important, likely rolls.

There is another reason as well; the more of GW's absurdly game-changing implementations we get like Riptides, Super Forts, Super Heavies, Screamerstars, etc you name it, the more monotonous lists get. These things will give potential lists far less diversity as you have to compensate for many things and many units become unfavourable because of their ineptitude at dealing with these threats; in a tournament list you need something to counter every scenario as effectively as possible.

Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious. Your whole post also commits the fallacy of appealing to nature.

I think it is pretty clear to the majority of players who play competitively that something needs to be done. The main debate that is going around is whether to hit the game with large-scale, unilateral changes or to go in with a scalpel.


What we've seen with the LVO and FoB are these two approaches. I think that Feast's early ideas are bad. If you go in with a scalpel, you better be willing to be extremely transparent and calculated about it. The LVO is going a more macro route, which is what the game needs.

Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

Boom. We are kept at a pre-Inquisition status quo. However, this still allows for army supplements and data sheets--just in a more balanced way. Furthermore, these are pretty easy to accept changes. Early reaction seems to indicate that a majority of players are against the aforementioned "bans".

6th edition is pretty good otherwise. Yes, Tau and Eldar are too good, but so were GK in 5th. In a few months, we may be whining about Nids, Orks, and Guard. Re-rollable 2+ saves have got to go, but SOTW may solve that. If not, limiting them to a 2+/4+ is pretty reasonable.

toocool61 wrote:
Why complain about 1 tournament you might not even be attending anyways? Why complain about rules most of the people attending the tournament want?

My concern is that voting for what will be included will become common. This opens up the probability for people simply voting against things they don't like, rather than what might actually make sense to ban. I am not planning on attending LVO, but I am planning on attending the next BAO. And if they use the same voting system that means I can count on alot of things getting voted out.

toocool61 wrote:
Thanks for reading and nothings personal!

No worries dude I understand

there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

Escalation and Stronghold Assault can benefit the armies of everybody and yet nobody wants to see them within a million miles of a tournament setting because they are not even close to balanced. They're terribly written, maybe decent for a fluffy campaign but they have no place in a tournament environment where the players want the rough 1/3 luck, 1/3 skill and 1/3 list writing balance to stay as fine as possible for a fair and enjoyable environment.

I am not trying to sound rude here but have you actually played enough games to understand the implications of either? Besides watching two online batreps of escalation? Those hardly prove anything (Remember team0comp's batrep of cronair vs SW?). We need to play these things out and not over-react. If we find that 95% of games with a Revanent Titan are won then yeh, ban or modify the thing, but my point is that TO's are jumping to the ban-wagon(play on words intended) and banning a TON of things. Be'lakor isn't something new that requires a massive investment or list change, neither is codex:inquisition, yet both are banned? Not because they're OP but because players don't wanna play them. All I am saying is that TO's need to be careful on what is banned/restricted and things need to actually be played to determine if they are OP or not.

Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious.

Ad-hominem much? Asking where the ban-list ends isn't unreasonable dude. If people are voting against Allies and Codex Supplements than surely you can see that this needs to be controlled? I am not trying to come off as a radical nuthead. I think there is some misunderstanding here

 Mr.Omega wrote:
The 2++ re-rollable is absolutely drop dead broken, almost irrefutably one of the dumbest conventions that's been devised since I've played 40k and there is a strong consensus, also amongst Daemon players, that it is game-breaking.

Noone with a rational train of thought defends the 2++ re-rollable. It is almost a guarantee that your unit is impossible to kill this turn.

Ok, i'll bite

So have you worked out the odds of daemons getting the 2++ re rollable? 70.5% chance of getting it and getting it off, now factor in not going first and losing half the unit quite possibly more to shooting, and possibly something important like herald with forewarning or grimoire. Factor in later turns passing the grimoire test and pyshic power, and possibly without fateweaver. Then Factor in out of 1850 having 900odd pts in one unit and a pretty weak warlord, over half the army in one combo. Factor in playing someone who knows what they are doing.

That is the reason WHY screamers havent won many, if any, BIG tournies, they are hard to play and yes hard to play against. Some people might not like playing against them, I can say I like playing against spammed wave serpents with my weak daemon troops, or Tau with rule breaking rules. I man up when playing them and play to my ability.

So now you have factored all that in you now have to factor in a 2++ with a reduced re roll to 4++.

People tend to fret when facing screamer councils, its part of the internet hype that makes them do that I think, but if people learned to play the mission rather then their opponent and changed the way they play their list against screamers they wouldnt have much of a issue, I think that is a big factor in people not having fun against them, they cant shoot the big mean unit off the board like they usually can and are forced to play differently and with tactical knowledge. This is why top players dont mind facing screamers as they know this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

jathomas2013 wrote:


If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

Agreed JT, I have played with them a lot and against them a lot, I have never lost to them yet.

jathomas2013 wrote:
... If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?

Because a lot of those marine players also play other armies, and not everyone votes entirely out of self-interest. A lot of people are actually interested in improving the tournament scene, not just in boosting their own current army of choice.

Once you start cutting things where do TO's draw the line for what can be cut?

Wherever the TO and /or the players decide it should end.

I noticed that Allies were in the Dakka poll recently? C'mon now, it's a year and a half after 6th's release and yet we are talking of canning them?

I'm not really seeing an issue here. Allies were a part of the core rules in 2nd edition as well... and yet the vast majority of tournaments back then never allowed them. With very few complaints from the players, because most players were as reluctant to deal with the resultant shenanigins as the TOs were.

Allies are great for friendly games where people just want to use what they have. For tournament play, they open all sorts of tinned invertebrate product.

TO's are treading on very dangerous ground here, and there are already people saying they will not attend any tournament with ban lists/restrictions.

Yup, that will happen. Just as people refused to attend tournaments in 2nd, 3rd and 4th edition that didn't allow Special Characters. That doesn't mean that having those restrictions wasn't a good idea... it just means that some players disagree.

Which is the whole point of asking the community what they want, so it can be determined just how many people disagree.

And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is? Why are they horrified that a weapon called a Titan Killer killed a Titan?

They're not. They're just horrified at the idea of it being a standard part of the game, instead of confined to Apocalypse, because it is just wildly inappropriate at 40K scale.

jathomas2013 wrote:
1. Why the Hate on Daemons?

Because the lists with re-rollable 2++ units are too powerful, and they're too powerful in a way that makes the game incredibly frustrating (well beyond pretty much anything we've seen before) and not at all fun for a lot of people. Demons don't deserve every proposed nerf at the same time, but they do need something changed. Keeping them as-is makes a few competitive demon players happy, but at the expense of the majority of people at the tournament. And if you look at what has happened in MTG and other competitive games that kind of metagame leads to serious declines in attendance.

If you ask a group of SM players if they want to allow Be'Lakor or the Tau Fire Cadre why on earth would they say yes?!

Maybe you don't, but some people have the ability to vote based on what is best for the game as a whole and don't use a poll as an opportunity to ban their worst matchups and improve their chances of winning.

You cite the approval of FW as support for voting, but I couldn't help notice that FW was voted down in the poll on Dakka (With less than 50% voting for it's inclusion), which actually means the community doesn't want it (Surprise!) but the last BAO played out beautifully with FW.

That's because it's an issue where the local players don't match up with the forum voters. People who actually attend the event are happy overall with FW, and most of the hate comes from people who just vote on forum topics. And you'll see this a lot in real life, FW acceptance varies greatly by area. D-weapons, on the other hand, don't seem to have any support anywhere.

3. Where Does It End?

Do you understand what a slippery slope fallacy is?

And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is?

Because it's incredibly stupid design by GW. Somehow they managed to look at all the feedback from Apocalypse players about the previous edition saying that D-weapons, especially titans with D-weapons, were too good compared to other Apocalypse-level weapons and make D-weapons more powerful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jathomas2013 wrote:
If it is game-breaking why does screamerstar rarely win tournaments? It honestly doesn't scare me, and I have played with it and against it. Something game-breaking is something that win a large majority of its games no matter the matchup, which points to a clear imbalance. The fact that screamerstar can be beaten consistently by a smart player and has several huge weaknesses (No hit/run!) means I wouldn't call it game-breaking, but to each his own.

The problem here is that a tournament consists of more than the final winner. Sure, screamerstar might lose in the final game to a good player with an optimized list designed to handle it, but against everyone else who isn't one of those top players it's a frustrating game-ruining balance experience. Even if I have no realistic hope of winning a prize at a tournament I still want to go because it's a fun day of gaming. But when I can expect some of those games to be so fun-destroying that I'd rather just concede and get lunch instead of playing my motivation for attending the tournament is gone. And if you want tournaments to be a fun event for the top players you need to have those big crowds, not just a handful of the most dedicated players fighting meaningless battles in an empty room.

If we find that 95% of games with a Revanent Titan are won

That isn't the relevant standard. Revenant titans (or anything else) could deserve a ban if they only win half their games but reduce the metagame to Revenant vs. anti-Revenant lists.

 JGrand wrote:
I think it is pretty clear to the majority of players who play competitively that something needs to be done. The main debate that is going around is whether to hit the game with large-scale, unilateral changes or to go in with a scalpel.


What we've seen with the LVO and FoB are these two approaches. I think that Feast's early ideas are bad. If you go in with a scalpel, you better be willing to be extremely transparent and calculated about it. The LVO is going a more macro route, which is what the game needs.

Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

Boom. We are kept at a pre-Inquisition status quo. However, this still allows for army supplements and data sheets--just in a more balanced way. Furthermore, these are pretty easy to accept changes. Early reaction seems to indicate that a majority of players are against the aforementioned "bans".

6th edition is pretty good otherwise. Yes, Tau and Eldar are too good, but so were GK in 5th. In a few months, we may be whining about Nids, Orks, and Guard. Re-rollable 2+ saves have got to go, but SOTW may solve that. If not, limiting them to a 2+/4+ is pretty reasonable.

I like the easy fix list. While it may make it so I can't run my "dream" army (IG primary/ BA allies/ Inquisition) I understand why it is there and it will be a lot less expensive to change my army to fit that format then to fit the titan format. Was the "no allying with yourself" thing every brought up to keep the Tau shenanigans at bay? And if so, how would that effect the SM codex which has self allying as a large feature of the book?

when i run tournaments i use the below that another poster said works fine for us so far.
-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

3. Where Does It End?

Do you understand what a slippery slope fallacy is?

Yes. But it is a reasonable question. Are you saying kill allies? Than at that point my question becomes even more valid because Allies have been in nearly every 6th ed tournament. I am not trying to be some whiny dude on the internet, but am trying to understand what is "off-limits" to the ban-hammer. It affects my lists. Of course I'm interested in where it stops.

I think for now banning Escalation/Stronghold assault is understandable. I'm not mad about that. What I am concerned about is permanent banning with much of the community only having 2 battle reports to go by.

And for your education, here are 2 more Escalation batreps
http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/283048-iron-hands-clan-comapny-ferrauts-battle-reports/page-2#entry3543891

The superheavy didn't influence the game much

jathomas2013 wrote:
Are you saying kill allies?

No I'm not. And judging by the poll results not many other people are. I (and many other people) favor killing the "allies" that don't use up your allies slot and potentially removing the "ally with yourself" option, but I think there's pretty strong agreement that allies according to the core rulebook should stay.

I am not trying to be some whiny dude on the internet, but am trying to understand what is "off-limits" to the ban-hammer. It affects my lists. Of course I'm interested in where it stops.

Your tone certainly doesn't support this. Your OP starts off with the assumption that everyone is banning everything and you need to fight back, not an honest desire to get an answer.

The superheavy didn't influence the game much

Which doesn't surprise me because it was a "fluff" choice, not one of the good superheavies taken in an optimized tournament list. The issue with Escalation is much less about Baneblades and Malcadors and more about D-weapon Revenants and (presumably in the near future) Warhounds.

[quote=Peregrine 567845 6334973 6e2a7a65b40f1b794057fa352dcb053f.jpgYour OP starts off with the assumption that everyone is banning everything and you need to fight back, not an honest desire to get an answer.

Everyone has good points, but I'm a little limited on time, so I'm going to reply directly to jathomas2013's original post. I hope that's cool.

jathomas2013 wrote:

1. Why the Hate on Daemons?

I don't think the hate is directly only at demons. To me, the Feast of Blades announcement seemed like only a few ideas off the top of the TO's head - not an exhaustive list. He did say it was going to be a living document and there would be changes made as time goes one. But essentially I think I agree with you. Banning/restricting just daemons is unfair (more on that later)

jathomas2013 wrote:

2. Voting for Things In/Out is BAD

Um... let's leave democracy debates for another time/place.

jathomas2013 wrote:

3. Where Does It End?

I think Kirasu said it best.

 Kirasu wrote:
It ends when GW makes a game that doesn't require such fixes... 6th is by far the most insane edition of 40k since 2nd edition, so it's not surprising you have to reign it in

Hahaha... but I think you make a point jathomas2013, if you restrict one thing, what to stop people from restricting everything? I say, why not? It's an idea I've been working on for a while.

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

The problem with that is that it doesn't address venom spam or, more importantly, serpent spam. Though it address most of the problem builds.

Eventually I think the internet rage over Escalation/Stronghold assault MIGHT blow over. Though I do fully expect D weapons to be banned and the number of fortifications to be limited(Placing 3 bastions, a fortress of redemtion, 2 firestorm redoubts and an aegis might be problematic...). Alternatively(And I think this to be the better approach) is to say that any fortification that cannot be placed as per the BRB cannot be deployed. It automatically would reduce the number of forts people bring(And who would even bring that many?!)

Could be just me, but shouldn't banlists and nerfs only be in place after two conditions have been met? I'll use 2d fighting games as an example:

1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

Example: Phoenix in Vanilla Marvel vs. Capcom 3. Nu in Blazblue. Sagat in Vanilla SFIV. Superman in Injustice. They received nerfs afterwards because of their extremely strong showings and results. They weren't banned, they became the standard to which others are measured against despite a few bad matchups.

Those examples are making me think of the top armies at the moment. Tau, Eldar, Daemons. They are somewhat consistent (except Daemons), they are strong, they have good matchups that equate them to A or S tier if looking at lists. But people knowing how to actually use their armies and play to the mission know the obstacles and contingencies when they expect to face those lists. Low Tier characters in fighting games can potentially beat a higher tier characters based on how their user wields them. Nerfing them now? Not in good form if all that's doing is handicapping the higher tier. That's the equivalent of saying "No Astral Vision for Morrigan in UMvC3. It makes the game 'unfun."

2. Banning characters in fighting games are usually only for when a certain gimmick shows that x character has far too much advantage in regular gameplay.

Example: Justice from Guilty Gear, Akuma from the Original Super Street Fighter II, Meta-Knight in Brawl, Ivan Ooze from the old Power Rangers game.

Those characters have proven that no matter what another character can do. There is pretty much no chance of winning regardless of player skill. Usually these show up after very few runs of playtesting before an event. Much like what happened to the Revenant Titan and it's D weapons. it can be placed here.


Everything else? Actual results should probably be seen first. Having 3 armies in top tier in current 40k I'd say is actually a good thing. It's not like it was 7th Edition Fantasy Daemons anyways.

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete..

The thing is, in order to reach that point, a whole bunch of people have had to suffer through unpleasant games.

If people can see that something is likely to be overly abusive, then banning it before it becomes a problem removes that problem before people have to waste games they paid to play playstesting the game.

The 0-1 limit looks good. Apart from troops and dedicated, every other codex entry would be nerfed. Its good. Very good indeed. But I think that as Lovechunks mentioned, no escalation, stronghold assault and more than 2 codices it will be game-changing alone that..

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

This is a bad standard because win/loss record isn't all that matters. You have to consider the effect on the metagame as well. Let's say we have a nice metagame with A, B, C and D as viable top-tier options. Now list E arrives, and is blatantly overpowered. The metagame adapts and now instead of an interesting four-way metagame you have a choice of E and anti-E (since anything but anti-E gets crushed by E). Even if E only wins 50% of the time because of all the anti-E lists the result is that metagame diversity is destroyed, and that isn't much fun. But if you insist on having a dominant win/loss record and ignore that metagame shift then you'll never ban E and you'll suffer through a boring tournament environment until people just stop showing up.

If you look at MTG you'll see this is the case with past bans. An overpowered deck might have had counters available, but the damaging effect on metagame diversity was still bad enough to justify a ban. And the results have justified those decisions.

Lord_Aaron wrote:

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

Once again someone has fallen into the trap of placing limitations on the FoC without taking into consideration how it affects anything bar the top armies.

Fair for each army?

SoB only have 2 elites and 2 fast attack choices so while every other army can take 3 elites/Fast Attack choices they are only allowed two. The whole concept of Orks is they field lots of cheap disposable units. Ork strategy is built around the expectation that one of the units will die, good thing I brought two. Necrons & Eldar troop choices have the most powerful dedicated transports in the game and would laugh at these 'restrictions' placed on them.

 Madcat87 wrote:
...SoB only have 2 elites and 2 fast attack choices so while every other army can take 3 elites/Fast Attack choices they are only allowed two. The whole concept of Orks is they field lots of cheap disposable units. Ork strategy is built around the expectation that one of the units will die, good thing I brought two. Necrons & Eldar troop choices have the most powerful dedicated transports in the game and would laugh at these 'restrictions' placed on them.

Very interesting point! Thanks for the input!
I haven't seen the new codexes yet, so thank you very much for pointing these out.
I'm not giving up on my 0-1 everything except troops idea though, but obviously it still needs more work.

 Peregrine wrote:

Lou_Cypher wrote:
1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

This is a bad standard because win/loss record isn't all that matters. You have to consider the effect on the metagame as well. Let's say we have a nice metagame with A, B, C and D as viable top-tier options. Now list E arrives, and is blatantly overpowered. The metagame adapts and now instead of an interesting four-way metagame you have a choice of E and anti-E (since anything but anti-E gets crushed by E). Even if E only wins 50% of the time because of all the anti-E lists the result is that metagame diversity is destroyed, and that isn't much fun. But if you insist on having a dominant win/loss record and ignore that metagame shift then you'll never ban E and you'll suffer through a boring tournament environment until people just stop showing up.

If you look at MTG you'll see this is the case with past bans. An overpowered deck might have had counters available, but the damaging effect on metagame diversity was still bad enough to justify a ban. And the results have justified those decisions.

Are you trying to say 40k shouldnt have a meta?. Also have lists really changed to counter the screamerstar or seer council?. I cant say I see Seer or screamer as E to be frank. as I said before people need to change the way they play, not what they play, when facing these types of lists.

MarkyMark wrote:
Are you trying to say 40k shouldnt have a meta?

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Read that comment again, the point is that sometimes the presence of a certain list/deck/whatever in the metagame warps the metagame into a choice between playing the best list/deck and playing a list/deck designed specifically to beat the best list/deck (even at the expense of losing horribly to anything that isn't the best list/deck, but it will never encounter those other options). The counter might be strong enough to drop the best list/deck's winning percentage well below "dominating", but it still produces a really boring metagame. The solution is to ban the overpowered list/deck so that other strategies have a better chance, resulting in a much more diverse and interesting metagame.

Lord_Aaron wrote:
Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here:

The problem is that gaming the system does not change the abusive combos, it just slides them over. You still have seer councils with this approach (admittedly, only with a 50% chance of getting fortune). You still have riptides being joined by buffmanders.
In fact, i would argue that such a shift would hurt any possible counters to the above builds, ensuring eldar/tau dominance in the future.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JGrand wrote:
[b]Easy fixes:

-No escalation
-No stronghold assault
-Limit of two codices per army list

I like this list,
I would like to see "no more than one formation" added to it.
6 broadsides and a riptide with tank hunter and preferred enemy C:SM is fine. 18 broadsides and 3 riptides with those free features starts to get a little silly.

Lou_Cypher wrote:
Could be just me, but shouldn't banlists and nerfs only be in place after two conditions have been met? I'll use 2d fighting games as an example:

1. Nerfing a character/list that has proven to be so dominant in the tournament scene multiple times that nothing else could compete.

2. Banning characters in fighting games are usually only for when a certain gimmick shows that x character has far too much advantage in regular gameplay.


Everything else? Actual results should probably be seen first. Having 3 armies in top tier in current 40k I'd say is actually a good thing. It's not like it was 7th Edition Fantasy Daemons anyways.

Here are my issues/questions.

1.)40k does not havea standard tournament formant...so what might dominate one format may not do so in another (we saw this in early 6th with Cronair dominating some formats and not others).. Do these tournaments have a common format?

2.) Do all tournaments count toward this? I see plenty of people saying that screamerstar does not win tournaments....it has won plenty (at least around me) just not any major ones...do tournaments need to be a certain size? How are we tracking results given different formatting. If we say only really big tournaments count then there are not enough in the space of a year (unless one list played by multiple players wins all of them) to gather any meaningful data. We also don't ever really get a sense for what lists are being played beyond maybe the top 10 in an event. Maybe in lots of events screamer star is going something like 64-8 or something winning a majority of games, and dominating those wins....but not unbeatable....



I think what the 40k community needs to understand is this...40k players (for the most part) are not hard core competitors. Most want to play games that they enjoy, have some chance of competing in, and play with the army they like. Unlike say Video games or Magic...changing your army is expensive and work intensive. If I want to change magic decks I need to spend money (typically less than a 40k army, often less than some 40k models these days), but I don't need to build and paint it. I get cards I play....

The other issue with tournament results is that not all of them will see the results of the change. So we allow super heavies and the one guy I know with a Revnant shows up...only 3ish players are even going to face him...or maybe he is a weaker player who just likes the model....maybe all his games turn into did my titan live? If yes I win...if no I lose...and we know this by turn 2...that does not a good game make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord_Aaron wrote:
I think Kirasu said it best.
Hahaha... but I think you make a point jathomas2013, if you restrict one thing, what to stop people from restricting everything? I say, why not? It's an idea I've been working on for a while.

Consider making everything 0-1 per army, except for troops and dedicated transports:
->It would limit the Heldrake/Riptide/Wraithknight spam I keep hearing about
->AND it would be fair to each army.
->It doesn't exactly solve the starscreamer list, but if Heralds of Tzzentch are also restricted (4 heralds = 1 HQ slot, but each herald is different) it would limit it's power.
->plus it has the added benefit of encouraging A LOT more variety in the various armies people bring
-> and some other benefits that I don't have the time to talk about here

Banning things, of course, is a little trickier.

*runs as people decide to kill the heretic*

I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach

Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points

HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.

Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels

The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

It also screws over things like Tyranids and several armies who have very poor other slots, such as CSM's near useless elite slot.

Nothing requires you to take those slots (especially if you build in the Flex points)

Where are most good NId lists spending points


Toops= Tervigon not limited.

Elites= if you used your flex here at 2k points you would have 600-700 points to spend. Without flex you have 500...what are you purchasing in this slot that is more than 500 points (9 Hive guard are 450 - 9 Zoans are what around 500)
Fast = Gargoyles are cheap
Heavy support= if you use flex here except 9 carnifexes or 3 Tyranos what gets limited (without it You cannot typically run 3 of any choice...but those are rare.)

So essentially it means no Double Flyrant HQ or Swarmlord + flyrant and that is the only thing that gets hurt for nids at all...as far as I can really see.

Lets look at MVBrandts Nid list (may have changed since he posted this) tha the considered for BFS this year

2k points
Tyranid Single FOC

HQ -240<25%
Parasite of Mortrex - 160
Tyranid Prime - 80

Elites = 360 < 25%
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120

Troops = 979 > 25%
29 Termagants w/ Poison - 174
10 Termagants - 50
10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235

Fast 410 points < 25%

30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210
30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210

His list from the Previous BFS with Swarmlord also fits the bill.



And CSM are required to take elites in this system why? Count up the percentages minimum 25% troops...+ 25% max in each other category + 5-10% = 125-135%.... so you can leave out entire categories (even more if you spend more on troops.) if you don't like them.

So I might need a more specific example of how this is screwing lots of armies.

It hurts

Screamer star
Ovesastar
Seer Council
Serpent Spam


Are their some lists you cannot build sure....but I don't see it over penalizing most types of lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also far less of a penalty to those armies than making everything except troops and dedicated transports 0-1.

Breng77 wrote:
Nothing requires you to take those slots (especially if you build in the Flex points)

Where are most good NId lists spending points


Toops= Tervigon not limited.

Elites= if you used your flex here at 2k points you would have 600-700 points to spend. Without flex you have 500...what are you purchasing in this slot that is more than 500 points (9 Hive guard are 450 - 9 Zoans are what around 500)
Fast = Gargoyles are cheap
Heavy support= if you use flex here except 9 carnifexes or 3 Tyranos what gets limited (without it You cannot typically run 3 of any choice...but those are rare.)

So essentially it means no Double Flyrant HQ or Swarmlord + flyrant and that is the only thing that gets hurt for nids at all...as far as I can really see.

Lets look at MVBrandts Nid list (may have changed since he posted this) tha the considered for BFS this year

2k points
Tyranid Single FOC

HQ -240<25%
Parasite of Mortrex - 160
Tyranid Prime - 80

Elites = 360 < 25%
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120
2 Zoanthropes - 120

Troops = 979 > 25%
29 Termagants w/ Poison - 174
10 Termagants - 50
10 Termagants - 50
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235
Tervigon w/ Furious, Poison, Claws, Tri Power - 235

Fast 410 points < 25%

30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210
30 Gargoyles w/ Furious - 210

His list from the Previous BFS with Swarmlord also fits the bill.



And CSM are required to take elites in this system why? Count up the percentages minimum 25% troops...+ 25% max in each other category + 5-10% = 125-135%.... so you can leave out entire categories (even more if you spend more on troops.) if you don't like them.

So I might need a more specific example of how this is screwing lots of armies.

It hurts

Screamer star
Ovesastar
Seer Council
Serpent Spam


Are their some lists you cannot build sure....but I don't see it over penalizing most types of lists.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is also far less of a penalty to those armies than making everything except troops and dedicated transports 0-1.

Just before anyone gets all uppity, the list quoted routinely curbstomps eldar, tau, daemons, jetstar, and other builds run by GT winning and Team America players on a routine basis.
Just to try and prevent someone who thinks double-flyrant is good from derailing. Brendan you know not to use individual list examples for a point in a forum thread!

Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.

I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.

I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.

Breng77 wrote:
Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.

I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.

I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.

Actually I think that is the best solution put forward so far. You aren't changing game design or mechanics. You aren't banning anything, just limiting resources which IMHO makes list building much more challenging and fun.

I personally hope this idea gets more attention and vetting and not simply drowned out by all the wight noise and loud voices.

edit* added quote due to second page lols

The game needs moderation because GW has shown that it cannot and will not moderate itself. I am thinking the design team is run by twelve year olds.

With that in mind, tournament organizers are able to limit the scope of what is available as they see fit. This approach is, in fact, the current GW talking point...use what you want, how you want.

As long as the organizer is willing to make that announcement prior to the event and refund moneies paid by people should the rules change before the day of the event, they can do whatever they want. Make it a vanilla marine only tournament...people will make thier position known by attending or not.

Personally, I will not pay to play in any event that has the newer books or data sheets in it. I refuse to play a game in a world where it seems that the only codex that the core rules apply to is the Forever Alone Dark Angels.

GW's current approach seems to be that there are no rules, only opportunities that have not yet been explored/exploited yet.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Very true....people are likely to just tell me that it is not a good lits . I would have written my own but here at work I don't have my nid dex in hand.

I'm also not sure I would even go fully in with my idea unless I wanted to run a comped event on that scale of comp...I just find it a bit better than the 0-1 ideas going around...and lots of people have responded (in other places) that it Hurts X faction, or type of list too much...and not one has proven really to be true.

I'll also not argue the merrit of whether Double Flyrant is good or not...more my point is that it is not the only good list, so curbing it does not invalidate current nids.

Actually I think that is the best solution put forward so far. You aren't changing game design or mechanics. You aren't banning anything, just limiting resources which IMHO makes list building much more challenging and fun.

I personally hope this idea gets more attention and vetting and not simply drowned out by all the wight noise and loud voices.

edit* added quote due to second page lols

I might try it out as a tournament at my LGS and see how people respond to it....at least that way if turnout sucks I am not out a bunch of money.

I think this is a great approach to any formatting solution. Again I applaud your ideas, I have advocated a % based system for a while now, but was unsure how to structure it. I think you nailed bud! Hopefully you can lead by example and it will snowball. We'll see I guess

Are you saying HARD limits on slots or COMP based punishment on slots?

That is the old 3rd edition comp format basically. 40%+ troops, 25% or under for all other slots.

I am not sure there is a need to limit dedicated transports because they already count as part of the unit they are bought for and it is reasonable to have all transport armies if needed, but even a 4 battlewagon 1800 list would be less than 25%.

Right now, I am willing to try anything, so if an event ran custom rules or something, I would be open to it. I think % limits is better than banhammer

I am saying Hard limits (+ flex points), using a comp score would be tricky, how much do you get penalized for going over, and by how much...because certain abuses will be better return on comp hits...as a hard cap...there is no getting around it with a minimal hit either your army works or it does not.

As for the dedicated trasports they do need a cap unless we are ok with

Autarch
6 5 man DA squads in serpents with Ghost walk Mantles
2 Wraith Knight
2 x 5 Swooping hawks
being legal at 1850 (with the 5% flex)

Really that is what it is there for (and Night Scythe spam to an extent, though you still can get 5). A battle Wagon list like you said is uneffected. But having Unlimited points on troops for dedicated transports allows the above a 25% limit brings it down to max 4 Wave Serpents (which is still a good amount but it helps a bit.) Otherwise you can get up to 8 Waves serpents in an army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for all transport armies

Rhinos, Razorbacks, Trucks, Chimeras are largely uneffected by the limit.

Yeah, now that I think about it... An all transport army with the 50pt and less transports is largely unaffected. It basically targets where people are taking a minimal troop simply to buy a tank with a huge gun on it.

Actually, I just checked my past 3 years of tourney lists and all of them fit this % no problem. But that could also speak to how the Ork codex and codexes from 'the before time' worked opposed to codexes now.

yeah an ork list would need to try pretty hard not to fit this (or bring allies.)

you could run Nob bikers with no warboss and probably do it...but why?

I guess 45 Lootas break it as well.

The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.

So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

By the way: This is what I think will happen if you let Escalation in. Now I may be wrong, but hear me out:

I think after seeing battle reports where Titans lose games over and over (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/567993.page) people will realize that Titans aren't autowin buttons for noobs with Little Mans Syndrome. Most won't take them, and the few that do take them will do average. But the chance of encountering sD will also lead people to abandon Deathstars alot. It will create balance, but it will take time for people to see that titans ain't some crazy stuff that wins you guys while you sip a Fanta Pineapple.

To be fair, I played the Screamerstar in DaBoyz Doubles and won. And...its not really all that much fun to play, either with or against.

I think in all honesty it has less to do with competativeness or not. I think the most recent forge the narrative podcast summed it up best.

"Is this the game you want to play"

At this point it is not about figuring out how to make the game perfectly balanced or anything like it. It is about making it FUN.

I have played against necron airforce, I have played against jetseer star+wave serpent spam. I have played against Flying daemon circus, I have played against the Ovesa Star, I played against flamers/screamers before they were updated. I have done ok considering I bring more themed lists. However it is not a matter of winning or losing but not a single one was a fun game. I spent entire games literally doing nothing but removing my own models and maybe trying to shoot something(with no results). I know tournaments are at a higher level of competition than I am able to compete at. I understand that

Are there ways to build an army to combat these armies? Sure, but the problem is that most of them involve playing one of the three power armies to combat the power armies. Leaves a lot of variety out in the cold which is sad because that is what I look forward to in tournaments. Will a "comp" result in a shift in meta and new players reaching the top? Definitely, that is always going to happen, however if it even increases the useability of entire books just a little bit I am 100% okay with this.

My last tournament the first game was jetseer. He was not a very good player and failed fortune on the last turn. It was 100% down to that roll and some bad decisions on his part. Any one of those differences and he would have completely tabled me.
Second game was against a good opponent with necron air and annhilation barges. That game basically consisted of me trying to shoot his fliers and him removing entire units per turn with tesla and deathmarks. Once again, not very fun.

Third game was against orks. In this one we just had a blast. I charged in and we tried to just be in combat for as much of the game as we could. His warboss accepted whatever challenge came his way which resulted in lysander punking him, however he then got wiped out by the rest of the meganobz next turn. He told me after the game "That is the most combat my meganobz have ever seen, it was aweomse". Am I saying that I want all tournament games to be like this? Heck no, I just want to have fun.

I would rather lose because I got out maneuvered or outplayed instead of knowing bar absolute gak/hot rolls I have no chance.

I like percentage caps also, at least for some applications. They won't "balance" 40K, if that's someone's goal. But it's a simple overarching framework that can prevent certain extremes and rein in allies to some degree. Even better, it's adjustable depending on the TOs' needs.

In many ways, this is a very old discussion that goes back 15 years. In 2nd edition, percentages are what guided army construction -- there was no FOC. Third edition introduced the FOC, which was an improvement in some ways and a problem in others. For instance, players immediately recognized that they could do things like take 3 Wraithlords in a 750 game. And so TOs started looking at percentages again as a way to control "slots abuse." They disappeared again when the game became more balanced overall and composition became unpopular.

The criticism of percentages has always been that different armies get their strength from different areas of the FOC. And that's 100% legit. However, I think that if you're careful about how you set the percentage caps, they won't become straightjackets. Obviously, there are other problems (such as 2+ rerolls just being unfun) that they won't address.

Experiment 626 wrote:
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

The existence of Screamerstar or Jetseer council alone did not start the crusade to fix Tourny-K, though these lists are the only things ACTUALLY impacted, because people HAVE been playing them in the past months whereas everything else being cut out of the tournament scene hasn't been around long enough for people to purchase, paint, or playtest. I doubt anything would have changed had they not introduced Titans into the mix. Once that happened, TOs felt forced to start making decisions, and once the conversations were started, a few other rules that people had long been bemoaning were open for debate.

Then, the TAU FIREBLADE SUPPORT CADRE formation was spawned, and it became crystal clear that GW has no intention of releasing rules with any sort of balance in mind (if you don't know the impact of this dataslate, listen to the most recent 11th company podcast). I honestly believe this was the straw that broke the camel's back. I know if I was a TO and felt it was a personal goal for people to have "fun" at my event, I would have a hard time not wanting to do something...

Having said all that, remember that this is just one tournament's guidelines. Nothing is keeping anyone from fielding their Eldar/Dark Eldar Seer Council with a Tau Fireblade Support Cadre that gets Tank Hunter and PE:Space Marines against their buddies Blood Angels in a "friendly" basement game of 40k. Go sick...

 gorgon wrote:
I like percentage caps also, at least for some applications. They won't "balance" 40K, if that's someone's goal. But it's a simple overarching framework that can prevent certain extremes and rein in allies to some degree. Even better, it's adjustable depending on the TOs' needs.

In many ways, this is a very old discussion that goes back 15 years. In 2nd edition, percentages are what guided army construction -- there was no FOC. Third edition introduced the FOC, which was an improvement in some ways and a problem in others. For instance, players immediately recognized that they could do things like take 3 Wraithlords in a 750 game. And so TOs started looking at percentages again as a way to control "slots abuse." They disappeared again when the game became more balanced overall and composition became unpopular.

The criticism of percentages has always been that different armies get their strength from different areas of the FOC. And that's 100% legit. However, I think that if you're careful about how you set the percentage caps, they won't become straightjackets. Obviously, there are other problems (such as 2+ rerolls just being unfun) that they won't address.

Correct it does not fully "balance" things, just brings them a bit more in line.

The above does to a large part address 2+ re-rolls. If you look at the 2 primary culprits for 2+ re-rolls

1.) Screamer star. - cannot bring Fateweaver and More than 3 mastery levels worth of heralds with the grimoir. (Either 1 Level 3 or 1 Level 1 and a level 2), unless you drop disks... So it really reduces the reliability...Either you only get 4 rolls (fateweaver +3) to get Forewarning, or you lose your grimoir re-roll. So the combo becomes unreliable either way. (either you sit at about 2/3rds chance to roll the power, or 2/3red chance to roll the grimoir successfully.

2.) Seer Council - You cannot take more than 2 Bike Seers and 5 Jetlocks..which again reduces the reliability of getting the powers you need and loses you hit and run...or you can take baron, and 1 farseer. and 5 Locks.. . or you can take 2 Farseers, Baron, and 3 Warlocks....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
and that is at 2k points. Drop down and you won't be able to do it at all.

As for the strength from different FOCs that is why it is more than 100% possible, and I built in flex percentage (5-10% not sure yet what, and may vary depending on point limit)

Breng77 wrote:
...I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach
Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points

HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.

Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels

The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.

Actually, your idea is not bad either. A max 25% for each type (HQ, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack) is fair.
Although I think the 5-10% "flex" might not be such a good idea. 3 Heldrakes would be 25.5% of a 2000 point army.
But still, overall I like it!

I also had another idea. I know there's been a lot of issues with Divination, as certain combos rely on it. How about borrowing an idea from Chaos and saying only half of your spells can come from a single discipline? For example, a level 3 Psyker could have 2 spells from Divination, and a 3rd from another discipline.
I don't have all the new codexes, so please tell me if there is something wrong with this.

Hrm.

I just played in a tournament, 1850, with 3 screamerstar armies, and 1 made it t the final table and lost to an Ork army that featured Nobz Bikers, a couple units of lootas, 2 units of Boyz, a battlewagon, some Meganobz and 2 warbosses. Not the most over powered list...

3rd place was a Tervigon spam army.

Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.

Breng77 wrote:
The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.

Or make the Dedicated Transport pool only apply to those that are skimmers and flyers?

As far as I was aware tournaments have always been house rule environments that banned or restricted elements of the game or hobby like say Mysterious terrain, Forge World Models and rules.

Some did the same with Flyers...........some not.

The few I have been too have also always been very light on terrain - it would be good for the game IMO to have a mixture tables with a bit, some and lots................

Lord_Aaron wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...I have actually been looking at a similar but slightly different approach
Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points

HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.

Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %

More or less this curbs most of the abusive builds

Seer Council either cannot include Multiple Farseers, or Barron or be short on Warlocks
Screamer star cannot max out heralds and include fateweaver
Limit on Dedicated transports limits wave serpents and Necron flyers to fairly reasonable levels

The issue with your particular 0-1 method is that it is extremely narrow and does not address things like cronair and serpent spam...meaning likely that serpent spam will rise to the top.

Actually, your idea is not bad either. A max 25% for each type (HQ, Elites, Heavy Support, Fast Attack) is fair.
Although I think the 5-10% "flex" might not be such a good idea. 3 Heldrakes would be 25.5% of a 2000 point army.
But still, overall I like it!

I also had another idea. I know there's been a lot of issues with Divination, as certain combos rely on it. How about borrowing an idea from Chaos and saying only half of your spells can come from a single discipline? For example, a level 3 Psyker could have 2 spells from Divination, and a 3rd from another discipline.
I don't have all the new codexes, so please tell me if there is something wrong with this.

That is true on the triple heldrakes...I honestly don't see it much though, but the system still needs testing overall I'm not really for the divination fix....part to the good part of the system is that it is finished at list building, so once players are at the table they don't need to remember the rules are changed. I also don't think that there are any broken combos left in this system that rely on it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
The largest effected transport is the Dedicated land raider because you can really only take 2. But most marine codices (not Blood Angels) can take them as Heavies so you could run 4 legally at 2k points. With Blood Angels Primary you are stuck at 3 if you ally. Or run BA as allies and run 4.

Or make the Dedicated Transport pool only apply to those that are skimmers and flyers?

The whole point is not to specifically target units...again I don't see that it hurts many armies. Yeah someone cannot run say 6 or 7 land raiders but there are plenty of other builds that are restricted as well.

General Hobbs wrote:

...Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.

Well, I would simply restrict them equally with everything else. Not ban.

Breng77 wrote:
That is true on the triple heldrakes...I honestly don't see it much though...

I hear a lot of hate for Heldrake Spam these days.

I used to hear it, but not as much since Daemons, Tau, and Eldar. Furthermore though I heard it I rarely saw 3 Drakes on the table.

The other thing to think about is what removing the flex means accross the table.

If you limit to 25% hard, then no army can ever field more than 2 Flying MC. (at least buffed ones, a Daemon prince with armor and wings will run you 205 points so if you want to add anything else to it you are out of luck)

That said I am also not married to the flex...I put it in to give players a little wiggle room. Now you can go completely without this as part of the system.

No I really like the flex as it gives less for players to bemoan about since they have that little bit of personally flexibility that is up to them.

I think this would make for an interesting poll. I think this could be widely accepted.

Yeah I have not put it up as a poll as of now...I am considering running an event using it next month if I can as a test run to see how players in my area feel. I may put a poll up in a bit...it seems like too many are running right now. I have posted this up in a number of places for feedback though.

General Hobbs wrote:


Hrm.

I just played in a tournament, 1850, with 3 screamerstar armies, and 1 made it t the final table and lost to an Ork army that featured Nobz Bikers, a couple units of lootas, 2 units of Boyz, a battlewagon, some Meganobz and 2 warbosses. Not the most over powered list...

3rd place was a Tervigon spam army.

Since some people find 2++ rerollable too overpowered, and while we are banning things, can be ban Ork Nobz Bikers???? they are still pretty annoying.

Edit: Whoops, misread

So a screamerstar made it to the final table but lost instead of winning the event, got it...

Breng77 wrote:


Keep the Regular FOC except go percentile based on points

HQ <= 25%
Elites <= 25%
Fast <= 25%
Heavies <= 25%
Troops >= 25%(in theory you could drop this and just require 2 troops)
Dedicated Transports <=25%
5-10% additional flex spending on Elites, Fast, heavies.

Allies and Inquisition take up part of this %
Units in formations count as their respective slots and count against this %

Here's a list I recently built, that got crushed horribly (by Grav-guns), and that I intend to try again.

GK w/ Inquisition Allies
GK HQ: Mordrak+4 Ghosts = 360
GK HQ: Malleus Inq, PML1, Psycan, Termie = 110
Inq HQ: Coteaz = 100
GK Troop: GKSSx10, 2psycans, Psybolts = 220
GK Troop: GKSSx10, 2psycans = 200
GK Fast: GKIx10, 2incins, 4halbs, Psybolts = 335
GK Heavy: Dreadknight, Incinerator, Sword, Teleporter = 260
GK Heavy: Dreadknight, Incinerator, Sword, Teleporter = 260
Fort: Martyrs Bunker, Void Shield, Icarus = 115

Now, I'd hardly call this an OP list. And yet, my HQ is at 28.5%, and my Heavy is at 26%. Does this mean that it's illegal? Or could I use the "flex" to boost two separate categories, so long as I don't go over the 5-10%?

If we go to Daemons, let's just consider NOT Tzeentch. Another typical build is Khorne Dogs. If I take 2 full units at an 1850 game (which sounds pretty reasonable), that's 34.6% of my list in Fast. According to you I can't do that. Why not? We know that a Hound list isn't OP, at least according to the tourney scene.

So that is the whole thing with comp though not everything would be legal. Addressing your 2 lists.

List one is not legal because you cannot flex on hq, but also you troops don't reach 25%. You can flex into the heavies so that is a non issue. So to make it legal you would need to drop something from the hq (2 ghost knights or an inquisitor.) and add 40 points to troops

As for khorne dogs... That depends with a 10% shift you are totally legal at 2 full squads otherwise you are stuck at 2 squads of 17 oh the horror.

Point is in general if you go comp there will be some limits

Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why:

As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)?
Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%.

And with Daemons:
Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame.
And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne....
But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends.

My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list.

Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus.


And if we look at an Eldar build....
At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless!

You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar.
I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+.
I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.

Also, 3), being a slippery slope argument, is inherently fallacious.

Ad-hominem much? Asking where the ban-list ends isn't unreasonable dude. If people are voting against Allies and Codex Supplements than surely you can see that this needs to be controlled? I am not trying to come off as a radical nuthead. I think there is some misunderstanding here

Either you have accidentally used the wrong term or you don't understand the ad-hominem fallacy. Ad-hominem is when you attack the person not the argument. His comment was very much attacking the argument by saying it was fallacious.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why:

As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)?
Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%.

And with Daemons:
Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame.
And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne....
But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends.

My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list.

Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus.


And if we look at an Eldar build....
At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless!

You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar.
I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+.
I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.

And this is a perfect example of why %-based comp is broken as feth in 40k...
Why? Because not all Troops are created equal!

In Fantasy, the 25%+ requirement for Core, (basically Fantasy's version of Troops), works well because across every army book, the Core options are roughly equal in terms of their worth/value to eachother. While some armies may only spend up to or just over the required minimum, they're not actually gimping their army in any way by being forced to do so. (ie: most HE players will only spend roughly the 25% min, but that 25% is highly functional with options for Archers, Silverhelms, Reavers & Spears.)

In 40k however, only a few armies all told really want to be spending additional pts on their Troops. MEQ's in general are well off, while IG & Orks have some flexibility. But overall, most non-Imerpial/CSM armies don't have really good value for their Troops and tend to require much heavier use of their other slots in order to gain the synergies for success.
Daemons are perfect example of this. Forcing a Daemon player to spend additional pts on the weakest part of their codex is bad enough. Adding an additional junk-shot of gimping their HQ allotment which is easily the most important part of their book is basically telling all Daemon players to just go screw themselves at the door.

Experiment 626 wrote:
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

Try being a Tau player, it's much worse. Not only do you still have the pariah thing going, but it's lasted literally since their release in third edition and hasn't relented. There are people on a near daily basis arguing that Tau shouldn't even exist, even though they've been in the game for over a decade now, before even getting into the rules...but no one has ever wanted them to have competitive rules, either, because it means losing to "dirty Tau" and the possibility of seeing them on the table more than they'd prefer (which is never).

Marine players don't think any other army in the game should be anything more than fodder for their bolters. To this day Marine players are still sour about fire warriors having a better basic gun than theirs, even though fire warriors never get used and are in the running for one of the worst troop choices in the game.

At least as a Daemon player you don't have to put up with stupid, bs arguments about how your army "doesn't belong" like I do. No one in their right mind would argue that daemons have no place in 40k, lol.

 Sidstyler wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
So much Daemon hate... I coulda sworn this was actually a Fantasy thread, until someone mentioned Taudar/Eltau.

Feth, and here I thought being a Daemon player couldn't possibly make me any more of a pariah.
Apparently though, Screamerstar is now considered to have completely 'broken' 40k.

Try being a Tau player, it's much worse. Not only do you still have the pariah thing going, but it's lasted literally since their release in third edition and hasn't relented. There are people on a near daily basis arguing that Tau shouldn't even exist, even though they've been in the game for over a decade now, before even getting into the rules...but no one has ever wanted them to have competitive rules, either, because it means losing to "dirty Tau" and the possibility of seeing them on the table more than they'd prefer (which is never).

Hey now, I love Tau!
Not only are you guys funny looking fish-goat-people, but your sheer ignorance of the true horrors of the galaxy, (especially Pink Horrors who shoot better than you!), whilst arrogantly looking down your collective noses at humanity & even the Eldar as 'superstitious barbarians' is absolutely hilarious!
How can I hate a race that makes me chuckle so much?! I mean, you guys tried to negotiate "for the Greater Good" with the Tyranids!

 Sidstyler wrote:
Marine players don't think any other army in the game should be anything more than fodder for their bolters. To this day Marine players are still sour about fire warriors having a better basic gun than theirs, even though fire warriors never get used and are in the running for one of the worst troop choices in the game.

At least as a Daemon player you don't have to put up with stupid, bs arguments about how your army "doesn't belong" like I do. No one in their right mind would argue that daemons have no place in 40k, lol.

Marine players in general I find get grumpy when any Xenos race/Chaos player hands them back their shiny power armour on a smouldering platter... Notice the first initial comp ideas for Feast of Blades? All aimed squarely at Daemons first and foremost, with hints of likely nerfing Tau & Eldar as well (and Helldrakes, just keep Chaos under their booted heel).
Yet nothing to harm Hammernators or Grav-gun spam. (not that I believe those things are broken in any way, but it's more the principal of the matter)

All through 5th Xenos got bent over backwards by the Imperial war machine, with Orks being the only ones to really make a go of it. But now that we have our own toys it's a whole different matter.
Where was the outrage and cries for 'balance' when GK's basically invalidated both Daemons & Tyranids and pretty much reduced Orks to just their Kanwall?! Oh right, all the ones crying for comp now were playing GK's, or SW's or IG - go figure.

I mean, you guys tried to negotiate "for the Greater Good" with the Tyranids!

I don't recall that ever happening. Source?

But anyway, yeah, 5th edition was the most "balanced" the game has ever been, but there's no denying that it was heavily in favor of Marines/Guard. They had the most and often the best updates, while xenos either went through the entire edition with no update at all or got a gakky non-update that left them worse off than they were (Tyranids, Dark Eldar)...Necrons were the only exception and even now they're really not that great anymore. Xenos sucked a fat one, but all the IoM books were pretty balanced with each other (at least until GK fethed everything up). I still think that if every race was updated in 5th, and all were given equally competitive rules (instead of the Marines getting the best of everything and the game designers suddenly forgetting how to do their jobs when it comes time for a xeno book) it would have been the best edition. It still had problems but I think they were relatively easy fixes...hull points wouldn't have been an unwelcome addition I don't think, would have helped reign in "parking lots" without making vehicles crap.

Honestly, the no Escalation, No Strongpoint and no more than 2 'dexes would be a good starting point.

The only other thing I'd add would be 2+ re-rolls are changed to a 2+/4+ save.


While, as a daemons player, I may be biased, but that many daemon nerfs? we aren't Taudar level OP! WE have like 2 good lists, both relying on the 2+ re-roll gimick. Yep, nerf every daemon list because of 2...

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
Alright. I'd vote against your comp, then, based on both these sample lists. And I'll say why:

As to the GK list, with a Grand Master you can make D3 additional units scoring. This makes a GK player able to get by in a game with less Troops than other armies. I've already got up to four scoring units (with Combat Squads), and now I can add another PAGK unit and/or Dreadknight(s)?
Pouring points into my Troops is, in this meta, a silly option. I have very expensive Power Armour (20pts/model), and my other choice is Termies (40pts/model, no Storm Shield option). With all the plasma and grav-guns running around, I may as well just sweep my expensive models off the table. Sure they're good at shooting...but when a Command Squad can pop out of a Drop Pod and annihilate my 450pt troop choice in one round of gravity goodness, I wouldn't say that's a good option. Protecting them in a LR means I've already used up 14% of my Heavy option at 1850, or 13% at 2000. I should be taking Psyflemen and Dreadknights, but I can't because of the flex problem. I NEED SUPPORT, from HQ and Elite and Fast and Heavy, and I need the ability to get more than 25%.

And with Daemons:
Let's just stick with mono-Khorne lists, since no one's throwing fits about playing against them. Khorne Dogs is a tactically viable option that definitely doesn't need any nerfing. Yet at 1850 I'm limited to 28 Hounds (34 with 5% flex), meaning I can't even get two full units! Lame. ALSO, if I want to take two Heralds on Juggernauts (one for a Hound unit, one for my Juggernauts unit), Karanak, and a Bloodthirster for my HQ choices (again, pretty common and pretty expected at this point), that'd put me at ~38% in HQ, which I can't do. Lame.
And finally, I'd need at minimum 47 Bloodletters in order to satisfy the 25% Troops. That's not actually so hard to do with Khorne....
But if I'm playing Slaanesh, I'd need at least 52 Daemonettes. And that's getting into silliness, forcing me to spend so many points on such a weak choice when I have much better options to sink points into, like Sleralds, Keepers, DPs, Chariots, and Fiends.

My point is that some armies depend on NOT TROOPS to make a good list.

Marines in general have solid Troop choices. But Daemons? You definitely need lots of support from other FOC slots, especially the HQ slot (which you can't flex). This type of flex will nerf ANY Daemon list, not just the Tzeentch Flying Circus.


And if we look at an Eldar build....
At 1850, you can still fit in 3 Serpents with Scatter Lasers and Holo Fields at <=25%. At 2000 and sans Holo, that bumps up to 4. Is that better than 7 Serpents? Sure. Does it still count as Serpent Spam? Maybe, since it will still take an ungodly amount of Str7+ shots to destroy 3-4 Serpent Shields; and if it does still count, your comp is fairly pointless!

You've fixed the RIP Tide, the Flying Circus, Serpent Spam (maybe). But you haven't fixed ScreamerStar or SeerStar.
I can still take 2 Farseers and 4 Warlocks at 1850, or 2 and 5 at 2000. While it's certainly not quite as formidable without the Baron, it's still as survivable as what's currently being run. 6 rolls on Divination and Fate is all that's needed to get that re-rollable 2+.
I can still have 9 Screamers and three PML3 Tzeralds with Grimoire at either 1850 or 2000. Now admittedly, I won't be backing that up with DPs...but it's still a 2++ re-rollable most of the time, which is what everyone's so cheesed about in the first place.

It is fine that you don't agree...nor do I think it is perfect...however you are quite wrong on a lot of points.

Troops thing for GKs...um...so it stops 12 point henchman spam...otherwise the list you put up already had 460 points of troops...so at 2k we are talking about 40 points of troops....so you throw one hammer into each squad and psybolts on the second squad....or take a couple min henchman because you have cotaez....hardly a large change. Now does it stop some lists again yeah it does. Does it hurt Daemons (most of which run around with 2x 10 troops and a Portaglyph) yeah a bit...but not the to point where they are unplayable....

As for Serpent spam so 3 or 4 is not better than 5-7? I think we will have to disagree here...3-4 is manageable (if they keep shields up they have no S7 shots) because if I kill 1-2 it is a big deal.

Haven't fixed screamer star...yeah I can take 3 Lv 3 heralds...but no Fateweaver, which means 1/3 turns I will fail the grimoir...I play it that way now and it makes a sizable difference...furthermore you lose auto warpstorm re-rolls which allow for the possibility that the unit will get hurt by -1 Invul save, or instability tests (either on Heralds or the unit....)so yeah I'd say it is hurt quite a bit..

Seercouncil you mentioned no baron which means they can be tarpitted...and to get that 2+ re-rollable you need to roll protect on warlocks (which with 4 warlocks is about 52% of the time, and 60% with 5), you lower the chances of 2+ re-rollable...remove their 2++ re-rollable making them more vulnerable to AP2 and ignores cover, and chances are they won't have multiples of some of the good powers (like the armor save buff) which means any perils or failed LD 8 check can be devestating.

So I have to disagree with your assessment.

again I know it is not perfect but the "oh I cannot run x list" is a bad defense honestly.

Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

 wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

That said, because of the diversity in 40K you don't ever see a traditional meta coalesce like you do in Magic or Warmachine/Hordes. All the models in Warmachine/Hordes can only be bought in specific configurations with fixed rules. There is no element of chance in the pre-game stages, so you know you’ll always get your specific combinations. Players don’t even have the options to buy units in odd numbers (you buy either the small size or the large size). This makes it very easy to game out the strongest lists with the best array of counters to other popular builds.

Instead in 40K, you see the emergence of lots of local metas based on how groups play at their FLGS. The west coast guys who post here seem to play against a majority of Eldar/Tau combinations. The Dallas area is still strong with CSM and Necrons armies and the Austin area requires more of a TAC approach because it has a huge diversity of players. This also means there is no universal right answer on comp. It instead comes from discussions on the local level about how you want to play the game and what is/is not right for your group. My local store has an entire thread going on how we’re going to run our next tournament from a composition and missions stand point on our own local forum http://battlefieldgamestexas.hoop.la/topic/bfg-will-host-a-40k-tournament-jan-18-2014 and the general consensus for us right now is to us our version of alternate scoring and to just not allow “D” weapons.

Ultimately, 40K is a communal hobby. Local groups and TOs will need to have honest discussions about what makes a fun, competitive game and you’ll see huge variation across the country. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want a no holds barred competitive game, then Warmachine/Hordes is for you. 40K requires a little more patience, but the diversity and the ability to build/convert/paint and, ultimately, play your army however you want is well worth the minor headaches for me.

PanzerLeader wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

Except I don't see this as true at all....their models are so far superior to their rules it is not even funny....so if they put in the effort to design such great models...and then put comparably no effort into thier rules how does that work out? This mantra of "GW did not design a tournament game" is such garbage....it is an excuse to put out terrible rules. I also think you give GW too much credit for being fluffy...I'm pretty sure the allies matrix grew more out of "How can we sell more models" than it did out of How can we give players rules to fight these campaigns. Also as long as both players arae of roughly equal skill, and bring roughly equal lists, and have roughly equal terrain etc...then the game is competitive...

Breng77 wrote:

PanzerLeader wrote:

 wowsmash wrote:
Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

I wouldn't say its unsalvageable. 40K has the richest back story for a non-historical game and the most diversity in terms of army/unit choices for any system. We just need to keep in mind that GW does not design 40K to be a tournament game. They look at it from a "complete hobbyist" stance where the modeling, painting, fluff, and actual game play are all more or less equal in importance. The allies matrix no doubt sprang out of a "Wouldn't it be cool if we gave our players rules on how to refight these famous campaigns?" moment. There are lots of really good things going for the game and as long as both players are of roughly equal skill, the game itself is still pretty competitive.

Except I don't see this as true at all....their models are so far superior to their rules it is not even funny....so if they put in the effort to design such great models...and then put comparably no effort into thier rules how does that work out? This mantra of "GW did not design a tournament game" is such garbage....it is an excuse to put out terrible rules. I also think you give GW too much credit for being fluffy...I'm pretty sure the allies matrix grew more out of "How can we sell more models" than it did out of How can we give players rules to fight these campaigns. Also as long as both players arae of roughly equal skill, and bring roughly equal lists, and have roughly equal terrain etc...then the game is competitive...

I think the quality of the models and the codices (the non-rules section) really underscores my point, actually. GW invests the bulk of its capital on generating a brand. Look at how many people buy codices just to read the fluff and enjoy the artwork. Look at how many people buy models just to convert/paint something cool. GW's main focus on 40K is not on the rules. It's on the brand as a whole and the brand includes the fluff. Not in a "GW designers are super fluffy" sense but in a "how does the story enhance the brand" sense. I think if GW actually understood how much money it could generate off the major tournaments, it would invest more resources into the rules. Take the Clan Raukkan supplement for an example. They spent a lot of time generating company specific fluff that could have been spent writing rules to make dreadnoughts viable again. If they were so focused on the bottom line, wouldn't they have jumped at the chance to make the super dreadnought force with cheaper, better dreadnoughts (maybe even the ability to make them scoring) that benefit from the Iron Hands chapter tactic? Of course they would have because dreadnought sales would have gone through the roof as everybody scrambled to keep up. I think we attribute too much of GW's moves to "bottom line" focus because we want them to be rational. I think we're kidding ourselves a little if we overlook the more likely fact that they make some irrational rules because there is an institutional legacy from the game developing as something the designers did to have fun while hanging out and drinking.

I'm not doubting them wanting to sell their brand I'm doubting that they put any effort into rules that is on par with the other part of their buisiness...and the rules are simply used to move models....my whole thought is Apoc already allowed what you are saying...the only reason to make it "official" is to sell books and models.

 insaniak wrote:

jathomas wrote:
]And one last thought: Why is everyone shocked at how powerful sD is? Why are they horrified that a weapon called a Titan Killer killed a Titan?

They're not. They're just horrified at the idea of it being a standard part of the game, instead of confined to Apocalypse, because it is just wildly inappropriate at 40K scale.

Seriously. I don't think anyone is surprised about the power of D weapons.

They just understand that there was a time and place for D Weapons, and it was called Epic. When people wanted to play games of Epic at the 40K scale, and FW could make the monies selling giant overpriced kits, GW made Apocalypse. Everyone knows that Apocalypse is ridiculous, and everyone arrives with the expectation of a lot of massive units that erase one another from the board in spectacular explosions, and that everything which isn't ridiculous will be smeared off the map hilariously.


I think when people want to go to tournaments, it's at least with the expectation that everything your opponent has will be both at the same scale as what you brought, and also in the same price range.

Imperial Guard can field a Shadowsword for around $100. By comparison, the cheapest unit a Space Marine player can field with the D is around $550 dollars. There's a massive disparity there.


If you couldn't use your Titans and Superheavies at a tournament a few weeks ago, why is everybody suddenly upset about it now? I can see how some things seem a bit nitpicky if they're banning specific units and combos, but let's be realistic. 6th Edition has been the most "Hey check this out" Edition since Rogue Trader, and Rogue Trader was not balanced, nor was it supposed to be competitive.

If a tournament feels it needs to "house rule" out certain combos, that's both in the spirit of the game (which has mentioned that concept since the beginning), and in the spirit of competition. We all know 40K isn't supposed to be competitive, and never has been. But we all also know (hence this forum), that people are going to compete with it anyway because there are enough people out there who like to win at things. So it's up to those people holding the competitions to decide what the rules are. And getting feedback from the player base is important, since they are the ones who participate.

Honestly the more and more discussions I read on this topic the more I'm convinced that 40k is unsalvageable and they just need to scrape the whole thing and start from scratch. If you tweek something somewhere it breaks something somewhere else. Maybe its time to hit the reset eh.

You think this way because these daily comp solutions are unnecessary, short-sighted, and convoluted. The game needs a small number of macro fixes:

-No Stronghold Assault and Escalation
-Limit the amount of FOC breaking stuff (do something with Inquisition/Data Sheets; limit players to two total codices)
-Maybe address the re-rollable 2+ save

Boom. The game is fine. I'd argue that 6th edition is more fun and more balanced than 5th. People who complain about Tau/Eldar (and to a lesser extent, Daemons) obviously never played 5th during the reign of GK. Now, is it necessarily "fun" to play against Seer Council, Serpent Spam, Generic Taudar, FMC, and Screamerstar? It depends. Lots of tourney players like playing with good lists against good lists. "Fun" and "balance" will always be subjective. The re-rollable 2+ is only really an issue because it is lame to have unkillable units. SOTW may put a stop to this in a few weeks anyway, so there isn't a need to do anything quite yet.

I don't think going through the game unit by unit is productive. It leads to far too much subjectivity. I'm by no means a purist for the game that GW "intends". Quite frankly, it seems that even GW is far more lax about which rules must be used than many dogmatic players are. However, just because we control the direction of the game as tourney goers and organizers, does not mean that the whole game must be re-written. Start with minimalist solutions--none of this percentile crap.

The game needs a small number of macro fixes:

@JGRAND - That may or may not be the case for 40k as it sits right now. The long term issue is that Stronghold Assault, Escalation, supplements along the lines of Inquisition, and selections ignoring the FOC etc… didn’t just happen in a vacuum . As 40K moves forward there is a strong chance that more and more of this will be integrated into the core of the game and it will get more difficult to backrev into whatever past version of 40k that suits our existing comfort zone.

Definitely interesting times … and with change comes opportunity .

 JGrand wrote:

The re-rollable 2+ is only really an issue because it is lame to have unkillable units. SOTW may put a stop to this in a few weeks anyway, so there isn't a need to do anything quite yet.

That would be great for Nid players but the rest of us would still have to "suffer" through it. So, I don't see that as a solution for the vast majority of players.