To the best of my understanding, dataslates have been banned largely because of the Tau formation. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the Astartes Stormwing or the three new Tyranid formations. I have no particular gripe with the Tau formation myself, but I see the shennanigans involved with messing with the traditional force org chart, and I feel this is reasonably addressed by letting folks take only a single allied detachment, which a formation would count towards.

My question to TO's is why is everything that comes out in digital format being banned simply because people don't like one of them? Adepticon, Broadside Bash and many other large tourneys have followed LVO's lead in banning every dataslate across the board. Are Be'lakor and Cypher so egregiously overpowered that they merit banning? Are they so much worse than toolbox Commanders letting blobs of Riptides ignore all the rules of the game, or Jetseer Councils flying around indestructibly?

Currently, Eldar are the top of the meta, having taken half the spots in the LVO finals, and owning the very highest win percentage on TOF. Banning Be'lakor and Cypher deprive Chaos Space Marines (considered a very poor army by most) of two very useful and interesting tools to help them compete with the big boys and shake up the meta.

Thus, I humbly request all TO's consider not lumping all dataslates together, and go about reigning in force org shennanigans a bit differently. Thank you.

I have to agree, I say no banning of any Slates that add a new units.

I'd prefer that GW compile the dataslates into a book or something. I want a physical book for me to play with.

 kronk wrote:
I'd prefer that GW compile the dataslates into a book or something. I want a physical book for me to play with.

I have to agree here somewhat. My issue with the dataslates:

1. The idiotic Tau Dataslate.
2. The breaking of the Force Org and Allies Matrix with them.
3. The fact I have to buy a bunch of small files which don't load very quickly causing me to constantly shift back and forth between files in game slowing down an already slowed down game.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I'd prefer that GW compile the dataslates into a book or something. I want a physical book for me to play with.

I have to agree here somewhat. My issue with the dataslates:

1. The idiotic Tau Dataslate.
2. The breaking of the Force Org and Allies Matrix with them.
3. The fact I have to buy a bunch of small files which don't load very quickly causing me to constantly shift back and forth between files in game slowing down an already slowed down game.

Agreed with all of the above...

So I dont mind Dataslates. What I dont like, as a TO is people spamming them. I am all for having an "elite" unit of broadsides with a riptide formation that has tank hunter. Thats fine. But not 3 of them. The 2 talons and a raven dataslate formation is fine...but not if you have 2, or maybe even 3 if you can fit it in. Right now, in the tournaments I run, I am generally limiting Dataslates to 1 per army. So if you play Tau with ally Space marines (or vice versa), well sorry, you only get 1 dataslate to work with.

3. The fact I have to buy a bunch of small files which don't load very quickly causing me to constantly shift back and forth between files in game slowing down an already slowed down game.

But do you really? I don't think you need to purchase all the DSlates in order to play against them, and you only really have to buy them if you want to use them. It's not like you have to purchase the 13 other codices to play against. And even still, most dataslate formation rules are 1 to 2 extra special rules that can easily fit in the "notes" section of any army builder. That really doesn't take that long to sort through.

I am organizing a 60 man event for the spring and I think we are going to allow dataslate units or formations but limit it to 1 and only one formation or unit. We'd consider the Inquisition Detachment as a formation for this purpose. Basically creating a 'Special Allowance' slot that is sort of like a fortification slot.

That way an army is only going to have one element that is outside the main rulebook FOC.

citadel wrote:

3. The fact I have to buy a bunch of small files which don't load very quickly causing me to constantly shift back and forth between files in game slowing down an already slowed down game.

But do you really? I don't think you need to purchase all the DSlates in order to play against them, and you only really have to buy them if you want to use them. It's not like you have to purchase the 13 other codices to play against. And even still, most dataslate formation rules are 1 to 2 extra special rules that can easily fit in the "notes" section of any army builder. That really doesn't take that long to sort through.

Yes you do really. This is the Tournament section, people who are playing 40k competitively are generally trying to win tournaments. To do so requires a working knowledge, or access to it, on a level above that required to dick around in pick up games. Army Builder has an output mode which removes the Special Rules from it when printing. I believe it is called "tournament output/format" or something like that. If my opponent is going to output in tournament format, or whatever it is called and 3 of my opponents at the LVO last weekend used this mode, then I doubt they are going to write in other special rules. The theory behind that is tournament players will either be familiar with the special rules or should have access to all of them themselves, if they don't then they will need to ask you to see a copy of your codex, or dataslate, or allied codex etc to see the necessary rules. Which they will then have to flip through and find and present to you. Also eating up time. No matter the way you look at it the fact data slates are all individual files is a pain.

you could always make a tourney rule that data slate units take up a FOC slot

 Ifurita wrote:
you could always make a tourney rule that data slate units take up a FOC slot

Which is then messing around with the core rules which most TOs are quite leery of doing for good reason.

The theory behind that is tournament players will either be familiar with the special rules or should have access to all of them themselves, if they don't then they will need to ask you to see a copy of your codex, or dataslate, or allied codex etc to see the necessary rules. Which they will then have to flip through and find and present to you. Also eating up time. No matter the way you look at it the fact data slates are all individual files is a pain.

If going through an allied dex and dataslates are pretty much the same thing time or research wise, is this really a justifiable reason to ban one and not the other? I mean, I know what you're saying - 40k already takes a long time to play and we shouldn't be looking for ways to make it longer, but you are talking about a matter of a few seconds, not hours. And yes, all those matters of seconds add up, but I think you're overemphasizing the laboriousness of looking through a rulebook, slate, or dex. That or the TO can put out rules saying if they are using formations or dSlates, that information has to be included in their list submission. Pretty easy solution.

I think you'll see a comment in the rumored "7th edition" that will remove any about if these are intended for standard games. I think they'll become more common in tournaments after that.

citadel wrote:

The theory behind that is tournament players will either be familiar with the special rules or should have access to all of them themselves, if they don't then they will need to ask you to see a copy of your codex, or dataslate, or allied codex etc to see the necessary rules. Which they will then have to flip through and find and present to you. Also eating up time. No matter the way you look at it the fact data slates are all individual files is a pain.

If going through an allied dex and dataslates are pretty much the same thing time or research wise, is this really a justifiable reason to ban one and not the other? I mean, I know what you're saying - 40k already takes a long time to play and we shouldn't be looking for ways to make it longer, but you are talking about a matter of a few seconds, not hours. And yes, all those matters of seconds add up, but I think you're overemphasizing the laboriousness of looking through a rulebook, slate, or dex. That or the TO can put out rules saying if they are using formations or dSlates, that information has to be included in their list submission. Pretty easy solution.

This was not my only problem with data slates.

This was not my only problem with data slates.

Yeah. I was going to add in that your first two positions are much stronger.

Ban nothing, use it all:Core, Escal, Strong, FW, Data.
Show up with D bad weapons, I guess Stern drop pod will come back. Run ton of fortifications, out flankers will come back. I know it is a tough job for the TOs to know all the rules and loops (power combos), But I'd love to the see the WAACAH get stomped because a Paper showed up against his/her mega rock. But that is just me.

I would like to distance my respectful request to not ban all dataslates as a category from any requests to do anything else including legalizing Revenant Titans, escalation, forge world or whatever else is presently banned at your event.

slaede wrote:
I would like to distance my respectful request to not ban all dataslates as a category from any requests to do anything else including legalizing Revenant Titans, escalation, forge world or whatever else is presently banned at your event.

All IN or none baby.

While I definitely understand the concerns over banning units covered by dataslates, the formations are silly, as it's basically "buy GW box X, get Y free abilities when fielded together, pay 0 points for free special rules", same issue I have with the Apoc ones, only moreso.

If I were to run an event again, I'd allow the unit dataslates, but not the formations.

 Vaktathi wrote:

If I were to run an event again, I'd allow the unit dataslates, but not the formations.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter pretty well. With a possible exception for Tyranid formations.

The Tau formation is obviously bananas, if you allow someone to run it x4. But I agree with Slaede, we're currently throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Be'lakor is extremely powerful, but he has serious and exploitable weaknesses. T5 with no armor save can be killed. Cypher isn't even close to broken, his best use is hiding him in a corner and trying to get extra VPs. Not allowing them in tournaments makes no sense. It also has some second and third order effects. I've played Be'lakor in my Daemons lists since he came out, I enjoy playing him, he removes some of the scary-random to the list. Now I'm going to a major tourney that isn't allowing him, which frustrates me. Thus, I'm going to bring Eldar/DE. I think most people would rather play my Daemons list than yet another Eldar variant.

Ban Be'lakor, I say! In fact, ban all those damn Daemons! Ban them all! And all the cheeseheads who play them!

Really, do Daemons need an overpowered character to add to their Herohammer lists?

I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

Coldsteel wrote:
Ban Be'lakor, I say! In fact, ban all those damn Daemons! Ban them all! And all the cheeseheads who play them!

Really, do Daemons need an overpowered character to add to their Herohammer lists?

In my (biased) opinion, yes. Give Daemons all the tools they have access too, because that will increase the number of Daemons players…which will decrease the number of Eldar and Tau players. I want as much variety as possible. Is Daemon Hero Hammer an annoying build? Maybe, but it's no worse than 9 Serpents or a Tau Commander buffing unit X to high heaven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

In the context of the LVO that makes a lot of sense, because it came right after all the changes. Protecting people's investments and all that. But now the dust has settled, and only the Tau formation is insane. We don't have to follow Reece's decision, because it was made in a context (right after the changes, money on the line) that other tournies aren't sharing.

Can someone explain to me how the dataslate formations work?

If I take the Adaptus Astartes Storm Wing, the storm talons take up two fast attack slots and the gunship takes a heavy support slot. Only the formation as a whole gets a couple of special rules for them only?

If it was up to me making a tourney I'd ban purchased buildings like the ADL, ban allies, and maybe ban flyers (on the fence about the last one as I wuv my Stormravens.), and ban all digital only books. If it's not in the base codex, can't use it either, and ban special characters.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

Major majority simply because it was too new.

Now?

*meh* let 'em in.

Welcome to the FW "debate" all over again. The unfortunate fact is some people are so afraid of allowing the game to change that they'll fight to the death to defend blanket bans on entire categories of rules that they declare to be "not real 40k".

 Loch wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

If I were to run an event again, I'd allow the unit dataslates, but not the formations.

This sums up my thoughts on the matter pretty well. With a possible exception for Tyranid formations.

Agreed about unit data slates. Seems a reasonable exception to me without the silly "same unit but free extra rules!" the formations come with.

 Peregrine wrote:
Welcome to the FW "debate" all over again. The unfortunate fact is some people are so afraid of allowing the game to change that they'll fight to the death to defend blanket bans on entire categories of rules that they declare to be "not real 40k".

I know...

For all the complaints of the Eldar's Wave Serpent spam/council or screemer stars or Draigo-wing or whatever uber-list flavor of the month... these dataslates in my mind looks like an attempt to balance things out.

I'm not even afraid of the Riptide spam anymore (especially since there's a ton of grav guns army floating around now).

I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with. I can trust that the TOs didn't miss anything in reviewing lists and making sure the slots are all where they're supposed to be.

The point is in 5th Edition tournaments, you prepared in a vacuum. You could know every rule, every unit and, if you played long enough, many lists that you might see on the tabletop. Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future).

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

 puma713 wrote:
I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with.

How is this really different than the way it was before? Everyone already does have equal access to all the rules. You can buy slates and codices as easily as I can, and even if you don't buy them all (because you really don't need to purchase them all to know what's coming) I'm sure you can find out just about everything by viewing dakkadakka forums. And besides, dataslates are available in many different formats so you're not limited to iDevices. You said it yourself - "for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game."

Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future). Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

Oh no. You might see something unexpected. We can't have that. Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument is essentially that it's too much hassle and that it would be harder to prepare. That's about it. There's really no difference between a dataslate and all the other codicies out there if it comes down to, "Well, I guess I just have to know all these rules!" Wouldn't you rather see more variability in a tournament scene than what's currently offered?

 puma713 wrote:
I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game.

You do have access to all of the rules. None of these are limited-edition books that you can't get anymore, if you want the rules just get them like everyone else.

If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game.

How is this different than codex rules?

What if I don't have an iDevice?

Get them for your PC. The iThing-only problem doesn't exist anymore, GW is now releasing them in a variety of formats.

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

I really don't see the problem here. Aren't tournaments supposed to be a test of skill and dedication? Why shouldn't people who spend more time preparing for the tournament have an advantage over people who just read their own codex and maybe briefly skim the forums to see the key points of the other armies? It sounds like what you're saying here is that it's more important for you to be able to win despite your lack of effort than for other people to be allowed to play their perfectly legal armies.

 puma713 wrote:
I agree with OverwatchCNC. I know it may seem silly to most of you, but the fairest way to play the game (in a tournament setting) is for every player to have access to all the rules available in the game. If you allow dataslates, then I need to purchase all the dataslates so I can be as prepared as possible walking into a game. What if I don't have an iDevice? I guess I could look up everything on the internet or ask my opponent to see his information every time he does something I'm not familiar with. I can trust that the TOs didn't miss anything in reviewing lists and making sure the slots are all where they're supposed to be.

The point is in 5th Edition tournaments, you prepared in a vacuum. You could know every rule, every unit and, if you played long enough, many lists that you might see on the tabletop. Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future).

Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

So if you run up against something you've never seen before, from the codex mind you, you won't ask what their rules are? At the LVO I ran a unit of 10 slaaneshi possessed and I grimoired them so they had 3++/5+ FNP. That was a dumb thing that most people never saw coming, esp after I would infiltrate them with Huron Blackheart's warlord trait. People are supposed to expect that? I've never seen either of those units in a tournament list. Heck, I even brought 2xnoise marines and no helturkies, many of the guys I played against had never seen noise marines either.

You are pretty much saying that you'll buy all the codecies, but only study the meta anyways. Dataslates are only like 4$ a piece, and most of them are not worth playing anyways. They just add some nice flavor to some armies(IE Cypher and Bel'akor).

Well there hasn't been a ton of time with the RTT / Tourney scene to see the real impact / cheesiest combo's appear on the scene with the formations / dataslates.

That said, I help run a monthly RTT at Huzzah In Ashburn, and we decided to allow all the data slates, but made a provision that formations were a special slot 0-1. We did have a few regular GT players show up with formations, including a very classy 4 army list. IG / SW / INQ / TAU, and it definitely provided for some mind-boggling combos, but It didn't win the games. (Though blob guard w/ rune priests, and inquisitors w/ psychotroke + rad is pretty crazy).

I mean the whole thing is iffy, because formations don't do anything that codex inquisition isn't doing in terms of breaking the FoC (and thus both are garbage in my eyes, b/c GW should manage to fit inside of their own core rules box, but that's a whole different discussion)

I think in general we end up with a situation where formations / codex inquisition empower the already powerful armies more than they empower the lower teir armies (CSM / orks ect).

But by restricting the use of formations 0-1, the most heinous spamming of said cheese to a minimal level, while letting people play with new dataslate toys which are neat, like cypher, or the tyranid formation.


TBH, I play CSM as my primary army, and I have yet to find a way cypher, or even Bel'kor really add that much to the army that taking daemon allies wouldn't probably accomplish better anyways. Bel'kor is certainly good, no denying that, but he's flimsy and can be difficult to fit into a list.


As far as some of the other arguments I've seen. I think the standard rule still applies, if you bring an army / model, bring a copy of the rules for it. Expecting your opponent to know the rules is fine, but you should still bring them, its a courteous gesture. I'm not even sure why that's a question up for discussion.

Of course it slows down the game to pull up the rules on our e-devices, but a clever person can figure out how to print them out no?

I'm just waiting for GW to release 2-3 crazy non formation dataslate models, then we'll have to end up going 0-1 on all dataslates, not just formations.

citadel wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Things like adding FW and dataslates take that and throw a wrench in the works by adjusting what you might see. So now, if a tournament allows dataslates and FW, I need to study up on all FW models I might see and all the dataslates (which, as of now aren't many, but will be growing in the future). Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

Oh no. You might see something unexpected. We can't have that.

Exactly. You're trying to be snarky, but this is exactly right. A tournament is a controlled environment. So, when I email the TO to find out if Dataslates and FW are going to be allowed, I know what the controlled tournament scene is going to include. If they say, "Yes, FW, Dataslates and Formations will be included", then I need to make the decision as a tournament player if I want to prepare for all of the extra information and scenarios.

I didn't say that this was the opinion of everyone or even a majority, but I can see this "hassle" as a reason to limit their use in tournaments.

citadel wrote:
Forgive me for being blunt, but your argument is essentially that it's too much hassle and that it would be harder to prepare. That's about it. There's really no difference between a dataslate and all the other codicies out there if it comes down to, "Well, I guess I just have to know all these rules!" Wouldn't you rather see more variability in a tournament scene than what's currently offered?

I don't, no. But, to each their own. Some love chaotic, bring whatever you want type of events (like what 6th Edition is lending itself to - armies including 3 different codices). I do not. It's personal preference. But some TOs may have the same personal preference that I do. I can see where they are coming from.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:


Add to that the supplemental rules increased with each codex release and the FAQs re-wording the things you've already learned and it can be tough for a tournament player to prepare.

I really don't see the problem here. Aren't tournaments supposed to be a test of skill and dedication? Why shouldn't people who spend more time preparing for the tournament have an advantage over people who just read their own codex and maybe briefly skim the forums to see the key points of the other armies? It sounds like what you're saying here is that it's more important for you to be able to win despite your lack of effort than for other people to be allowed to play their perfectly legal armies.

I think you missed my point. I am one of those people who tirelessly prepare. I build lists for every codex, I study lists and tactics that are dominating the current meta, etc. To do so does take a lot of effort, but it is fun - it is something I enjoy doing. So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

Again, as I pointed out before, I don't expect you all to agree with me, but there are others like me and some of those may just be TOs. Those TOs may feel that these aspects of the game clutter the field and so restrict them. Either way, you're going to make one group unhappy, so it just depends on which group for that tournament.

Finally, I am not saying that all tournaments should ban these things. I am saying that including them may hamper your tournament turnout.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

This is exactly my point. Everyone in the thread is saying, "Oh, they didn't allow them because they are too new." Being new doesn't matter if it is not all about preparation, which is what I've been talking about. If ability to prepare for the meta does not come into the equation, then banning them because they are "too new" doesn't make sense.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Kimchi Gamer wrote:
I think it should be noted that Reece polled the players that were actually attending the LVO and the majority of the players did not want data slates being included.

Truth. I believe it was a significant majority too if memory serves.

It would make sense that a majority of players at an event wanted to play with the rules the event set up. How many people that wanted to play with cool or fluffy data slates just didn't turn up because of the blanket ban? How much of this banning is just knee-jerk "ermahgerd change" reactions? I think Escalation and SA shouldn't be in normal 40k games (after playing against supers and void shield gens with wave serpents under them(not the same list)). Banning things because of 'too much' is wrong. More options is always better.

Regardless of how T Os feel about it, and it is of course their tournament.

from a logical standpoint the dataslates, escalation, and stronghold assault all are rules outside of the BRB but are not optional.

These supplements are as optional as the space marine codex, or the tau codex.

*** I know stronghold assault has some rules listed as optional but they are rules regarding how models interact with buildings, and what-nots, the buildings contained in the supplement are not optional***

The idea that some of the data slates are overpowered is somewhat ludicrous as many of the armies can ally with another faction to create powerful combos as well through the allies system, and guess what? Allies are as legitimate of a rules system as data slates, and vice versa.

ie Fortune+baron

Dark eldar + Imotekh

Tigurius + necrons

etc.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 Ifurita wrote:
you could always make a tourney rule that data slate units take up a FOC slot

Which is then messing around with the core rules which most TOs are quite leery of doing for good reason.

All the major tournies already mess with the core rules so this argument is rather comical.

Random objectives
Placing terrain
Missions
Allowing allies but restricting everything else when they are also optional
Banning FW

So all major tournies I am aware of are guilty of something on that list off the top of my head.

I am not disagreeing with your stance, but I think it is already done poorly. Either play raw vanilla 40k with know options. One core codex, straight rulebook. Or allow it all.

Somewhat related to this topic, it will be interesting to see how tournaments treat the upcoming Imperial Knights release, particularly as (from what the leaked WD pages stated) they'll be able to be fielded as their own army of 3-6 Knights or as an Allied detachment, bringing Superheavies and D weapons in outside of Apocalypse and Escalation entirely.

40k will be a much more varied place indeed by the end of 2014, particularly if the rumored new push of FW stuff also takes place as well.

I was actually really surprised people voted down Be'Lakor (Cypher wasn't out yet) honestly. I thought for sure the Formations would get nixed, though.

We are 99% likely going to let characters in for the BAO like Be'Lakor, Cypher, etc.

It is a weird place we are in, right now. The Knight Titan looks bad ass and most of the Super Heavies and Formations are totally fine, but some of them are so insanely OP that it is hard to imagine using them in regular games.

I am going to shoot out the LVO exit poll tonight or tomorrow and we will share the results to get more feedback.

I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in.

We will see what the community thinks.

 puma713 wrote:
So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

It sounds like your problem here is that you did all of your theory and playtesting work based on an assumption that the tournament would include a certain set of house rules that limit what is allowed, instead of asking the TO in advance if they were going to have those house rules or not. There's really no excuse for being surprised if a tournament uses the standard rules for army lists.

 Peregrine wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
So, when I prepare a list or two for tournament play, I can enjoy knowing that I have made the best take-all-comers list that I can through test games, practice and theoryhammer. And then, a week or two before the event, someone says, "Dataslates, FW and Formations will be included." Then I have to make a decision if I want to start again with all available units coming in from FW, etc.

It sounds like your problem here is that you did all of your theory and playtesting work based on an assumption that the tournament would include a certain set of house rules that limit what is allowed, instead of asking the TO in advance if they were going to have those house rules or not. There's really no excuse for being surprised if a tournament uses the standard rules for army lists.

I assume you're not understanding what I'm saying. I do not have a problem. If I do not like the rules that a tournament is using, I will not attend. It's not like I go to a tournament and then bitch about the rules that everyone else is allowed to use. My entire point was to illustrate how a TO (like Reece) could vote down these FW models/dataslates/formations and how I can see why for the reasons I stated. You may lose some players for allowing them in games (like myself, perhaps). You may not lose any (or very few) by not allowing them.

Reece took a vote and the overwhelming majority voted against them. I would have been one of them.

slaede wrote:
To the best of my understanding, dataslates have been banned largely because of the Tau formation. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the Astartes Stormwing or the three new Tyranid formations. I have no particular gripe with the Tau formation myself, but I see the shennanigans involved with messing with the traditional force org chart, and I feel this is reasonably addressed by letting folks take only a single allied detachment, which a formation would count towards.

My question to TO's is why is everything that comes out in digital format being banned simply because people don't like one of them? Adepticon, Broadside Bash and many other large tourneys have followed LVO's lead in banning every dataslate across the board. Are Be'lakor and Cypher so egregiously overpowered that they merit banning? Are they so much worse than toolbox Commanders letting blobs of Riptides ignore all the rules of the game, or Jetseer Councils flying around indestructibly?

Currently, Eldar are the top of the meta, having taken half the spots in the LVO finals, and owning the very highest win percentage on TOF. Banning Be'lakor and Cypher deprive Chaos Space Marines (considered a very poor army by most) of two very useful and interesting tools to help them compete with the big boys and shake up the meta.

Thus, I humbly request all TO's consider not lumping all dataslates together, and go about reigning in force org shennanigans a bit differently. Thank you.

I agree with you 100%. Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed? Its like 1999+1. What's the current version of TO modified 40K? 39+1K...?

A 39+1K(no slates, no formations, no stronghold, no FW, no...) tourney!... Yayyy!

I don't know anything about tournaments, never played in one, but I will go ahead and disagree with the OP.

I think Dataslates should all have physical hard copies, real ink and paper. Well... really my argument is that they ought to include whatever is on the dataslate in the appropriate codex or supplement. The idea that now not only am I constrained by cost but I also have to buy a "dataslate" to run Belakor is kind of ludicrous.

Please stop supporting these rules snippets and demand real books people, it's the only way.

 Byte wrote:
Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed? Its like 1999+1.

Which was widely accepted! I want the extra units / characters allowed, but the formations? No thanks...

There's not one right way to play 40k, despite internet hyperbole. TOs like Reecius, MVBrandt, etc figure out things the best they can. But 1999+1 was a pretty popular solution. Allowing units / characters but not formations from data slates would be another, most likely.

Birdux wrote:
Well there hasn't been a ton of time with the RTT / Tourney scene to see the real impact / cheesiest combo's appear on the scene with the formations / dataslates.

That said, I help run a monthly RTT at Huzzah In Ashburn, and we decided to allow all the data slates, but made a provision that formations were a special slot 0-1. We did have a few regular GT players show up with formations, including a very classy 4 army list. IG / SW / INQ / TAU, and it definitely provided for some mind-boggling combos, but It didn't win the games. (Though blob guard w/ rune priests, and inquisitors w/ psychotroke + rad is pretty crazy).

And that right there is my big problem. There is NOTHING fluffy about that and you are playing that simply by trying to bring the most OP cheese combos to the table in one army. Not to mention it completely negates any semblance of internal codex balance. Tau suck in close combat, so ally in cc from another codex problem solved, but Tau suck in CC because they are gods in shooting..thats the balance. The helldrake is REALLY good, but the remainder of the codex is meh...so I load up on helldrakes and then ally in X. Internal balance offset again. Finally when I play a game I want see it like I see it in my head from novels. Take IG....lots of tanks and infantry defiantly standing in a trench system staring down whatever aggressor is arrayed against them. Not that hodge-podge mess you listed up there. The truth is and I know big shock, GW did all the formation, allies, escalation dataslate BS, to sell models. Why would you buy another mid-strength unit from your own codex when you can buy the shiny Riptide. And when 6.5 or real 7th makes CC godly again, everyone will be buying blood angels and khorne to ally in. There is nothing balanced about it, nor fluffy. I like and only play in tournaments that allow no escalation, no fortification and only two armies represented in your list. Just like VW shot down the auto-workers union, we as a community sometimes have to stand up and say "uhhhhh, no...no man...^%## no" (<----office space ripoff). I for one applaud Nova and Adepticon for taking every effort to keep some semblance of 40K still in 40K.

For those that want to keep the game like it was in fifth edition you're holding back the game IMO. I don't think GW is going to roll back the game. Sure it is more stuff to have to learn but oh well things change. I like what TSHFT is doing and taking a chance. A lot of comp had been introduced over the past year. This is a big part of the reason why see a handful of specific lists winning over and over again and it's not fair.

"I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in."

I think this is the right way to go forward - start adopting the new things or eventually there will be a huge rift. The people who want to keep the game at their level (just the codices and even no allies) to remain in their own comfort zone are holding it back. They might think they are more competitive but it's not really true, they are more set in their ways.

There has been a lot of ground gained to accept Forge World over the past year or so... It's pretty much the same thing if you think about it in a lot of ways. I know it's more work for the TOs but that is part of the job and comes with the territory.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
For those that want to keep the game like it was in fifth edition you're holding back the game IMO. I don't think GW is going to roll back the game. Sure it is more stuff to have to learn but oh well things change. I like what TSHFT is doing and taking a chance. A lot of comp had been introduced over the past year. This is a big part of the reason why see a handful of specific lists winning over and over again and it's not fair.

"I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in."

I think this is the right way to go forward - start adopting the new things or eventually there will be a huge rift. The people who want to keep the game at their level (just the codices and even no allies) to remain in their own comfort zone are holding it back. They might think they are more competitive but it's not really true, they are more set in their ways.

There has been a lot of ground gained to accept Forge World over the past year or so... It's pretty much the same thing if you think about it in a lot of ways. I know it's more work for the TOs but that is part of the job and comes with the territory.

Okay well why don't we just do away with allies, all codexes and codex supplements and dataslates. We can put ALL the units in one BIG book and then you can just bring whatever you want. Ork lootas, Tau Riptide, a Swarmlord, couple drop pods, but I will load them with necron warriors.... oh wait nevermind I need to be WAAC and the necron transport is better, so lets run that but with vanguard vets coming out of instead. Def need an inquisitor in there....no no wait...JOTWW priest...yep def the way to go.

At some point you lose the background of 40k and you might as well just be playing any other plastic men game. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but "holding the game back"? If that means "holding it back" from going down the road it appears to be going.....I'll take that label

Well , I won't play or play against electronic only rules. Period. So if that extends to tournys , so be it.

It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

 Reecius wrote:
. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

I assume you are talking about formations and Escalation, specifically D-Weapons, here. My first thought when reading this was the abusive Battle Brothers matrix. Everything you wrote is what I think about in terms of Battle Brothers in the game right now.

This may be where both sides of the issue are having a disconnect. Some people think the game is already full of insanely over powering combos, I.E. Deathstars through Battle brothers, so what's the harm in adding more.

Other people think the game is not full of insanely over powering combos and formations brings that into the game.

I think a reasonable person can see the game is currently full of over powered combos which break game balance in as much as if you can't do the same overpowering BB combo, you can't compete. These lists also break the force org. chart through allying so breaking it through formations won't alter the way the game is played right now.

 Reecius wrote:
I was actually really surprised people voted down Be'Lakor (Cypher wasn't out yet) honestly. I thought for sure the Formations would get nixed, though.

We are 99% likely going to let characters in for the BAO like Be'Lakor, Cypher, etc.

It is a weird place we are in, right now. The Knight Titan looks bad ass and most of the Super Heavies and Formations are totally fine, but some of them are so insanely OP that it is hard to imagine using them in regular games.

I am going to shoot out the LVO exit poll tonight or tomorrow and we will share the results to get more feedback.

I think the answer going forward will be to just ban or limit very specific things, and let most of everything else in.

We will see what the community thinks.

This news makes me extremely happy. The less I have to play diplomat to field the coolest DP mini ever made the better.

I'm really not worried about knights at all. The Errant in particular is really underwhelming, and it doesn't look like they have any way to win games outside of going for the table as a primary army.

The rules on the Knights look awful unless we're missing something, lol!

@Darth

You make some good points, but I think it more a case of the Devil you know.

While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

As for Super Heavies and such, I love them, I really want to use the big boys, but some of them make the game unenjoyable to play. At least to me and the guys we play-test with. Baneblades and such are no big deal, but the Revenant and units like that are so OP it is flat out silly. While some people may disagree I can tell you that many, many folks would not come back to a tournament that allowed that stuff.

 Reecius wrote:
It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

The problem is we already have things that are powerful combo's...

And they are single dex, or joined together as allies. They are called Eldar and Tau.

Or Daemonstars, though that isn't as far up as those two.

It's weird hearing "Ban this and that" But not the things that are so actively overpowered that the meta revolves around them.

I haven't had a chance to peruse this whole thread yet, but I wanted to pop in and point out that not all major events are unilaterally banning digital products. I think it's entirely reasonable for events that have or are being run at this point in the year to have gone forward without allowing them, since the first big wave only hit in December. That being said, I know they're under review for other upcoming tournaments.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

The problem is we already have things that are powerful combo's...

And they are single dex, or joined together as allies. They are called Eldar and Tau.

Or Daemonstars, though that isn't as far up as those two.

It's weird hearing "Ban this and that" But not the things that are so actively overpowered that the meta revolves around them.

So instead we should add things that make Tau and Eldar more powerful? This is the part I never get. The game is already broken, so why break it even more? IMO adding formations and super heavies, narrows the meta, invalidates a ton of lists, and makes a lot of games a win loss at the list building phase, so much so that games end on turn 2 one way or the other. I'm fine with character data slates, but formations are poorly implemented, and some are stupidly broken. As for super heavies..ld weapons should not existing standard 40k, they negate the usefulness of too many units.. No weapon should deny all saves and cause instant death, and be able to do so for multiple models at once....d was a mechanic designed to speed up apoc games....nothing more.

@Zebio

True, but that doesn't mean we just open the floodgates further.

Try this stuff out, too. A lot of people that advocate for allowing everything haven't even tried it. We always try the new stuff to make at least a partially educated decision as to how the things play in the game. So many people on the net argue purely from theory.

As Rob pointed out, it was way early when this stuff came out, we had a month to adapt and we went conservative, which can hardly be surprising from a TO or player perspective.

But, as Rob said, we all talk and a lot of folks are looking forward towards new events. Rob's events are very permissive and he runs them at 2K, Double FoC, and it is super fun! I really enjoy the way he runs a different event and that is cool.

There's room for lots of styles of events.

 Reecius wrote:


While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

Any way for us to see how many Warmachine players attended LVO this year? My group is leaning towards a break from 40k to play Warmachine and I was wondering what the adoption rate of more people attending the tournaments is. We will be hitting Adepticon for 40k but afterwards we plan to dabble with WarmaHordes.

I love 40k but for a balanced tournament setting, its bonkers right now. So this may be a case of the grass is always greener but we feel its time to explore different options while the dust settles on the 40k tournament scene. I really don't envy you big event organizers as you are going to get flak from all sides which ever way the dice fall.

The biggest issue I have with data slates are the fact they ARE digital. An unscrupulous player could take an obscure unit, tweek it a bit (+1 WS, +1 wound, add Eternal Warrior) and suddenly the Barrons brother, Count Sissyfix, is a CC god.
And unless you have EVERY data slate yourself, you have no choice but to accept your opponents I-Thing readout that says fielding Chapter Master Chuck Norris (75 points cost) does in fact give you an auto-win with full points in any game he is fielded.

The same can be done with a codex. I know it's been done with AB.

dkellyj wrote:The biggest issue I have with data slates are the fact they ARE digital. An unscrupulous player could take an obscure unit, tweek it a bit (+1 WS, +1 wound, add Eternal Warrior) and suddenly the Barrons brother, Count Sissyfix, is a CC god.
And unless you have EVERY data slate yourself, you have no choice but to accept your opponents I-Thing readout that says fielding Chapter Master Chuck Norris (75 points cost) does in fact give you an auto-win with full points in any game he is fielded.

Dozer Blades wrote:The same can be done with a codex. I know it's been done with AB.

Both are examples of blatant cheating. Might as well not play the game due to the possibility of loaded dice. If you play someone that cheats at that level, you have to want to play that person again as I never would.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:

 Byte wrote:
Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed? Its like 1999+1.

Allowing units / characters but not formations from data slates would be another, most likely.

National AND local tourneys are becoming shells of the approved rule set and available options, hence 39K+1.

If the concern is OP combos or as mentioned earlier thread why aren't Eldar/Taudar/Deldar being tamed/limited? Clearly they bring to the table an overwhelming advantage. No? True balance would be everybody showing up with the same army and list and letting the dice, terrain, and generalship handle the rest. Unrealistic and will never happen.

Anyone else think it'd be kind of nice of 40k adopted something similar to the rules set of WHFB where you're limited in the points value you can spend in any given slot? I think that'd go a long way toward balancing the game. Someone wants to kit out 3 riptides? Great! That'd be fair and fun to fight against in a 3000 point game. I wouldn't mind playing against three riptides with that many points regardless of the army I had.

Why is it that when anyone advocates for Formations, Stronghold, Escalation someone has to say we want D-Weapons?

What is wrong with allowing

everything, except D-weapons.

There it is. Three words in the tourney packet. Done.

Why does the Tyranid formations languish in the same penalty box as the Revanent? They are completely different, yet the anti formation crowd always brings the Revenant up if we are going to allow formations.

As for myself I just want to play two bastions with an attached ADL. I want to put Iron Warriors inside and have fun. That's all I want, but my bastions languish under the same iron chains as D-Weapons.

So if Tyranid formations are allowed then how about the Tau formation?

 Sidstyler wrote:
So if Tyranid formations are allowed then how about the Tau formation?

Yes the Tau formation is fine. What is it 700pts? 800pts? Playtest what happens to it when it runs up against the Beaststar especially with the big LOS blocking terrain in the center that tourneys like.

I'm not attacking you here, but I feel the fear of the Tau formation is on paper and not in reality.

Is the Tau formation really that bad? If yes then ban that one.

 SRSFACE wrote:
Anyone else think it'd be kind of nice of 40k adopted something similar to the rules set of WHFB where you're limited in the points value you can spend in any given slot? I think that'd go a long way toward balancing the game. Someone wants to kit out 3 riptides? Great! That'd be fair and fun to fight against in a 3000 point game. I wouldn't mind playing against three riptides with that many points regardless of the army I had.

40K used to do this a long time ago. I, for one, would love to see it return to that, percentage-based list building.

 puma713 wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
Anyone else think it'd be kind of nice of 40k adopted something similar to the rules set of WHFB where you're limited in the points value you can spend in any given slot? I think that'd go a long way toward balancing the game. Someone wants to kit out 3 riptides? Great! That'd be fair and fun to fight against in a 3000 point game. I wouldn't mind playing against three riptides with that many points regardless of the army I had.

40K used to do this a long time ago. I, for one, would love to see it return to that, percentage-based list building.

You mentioned in a earlier post that you support the position of not changing core rules of the game, but this goes far beyond small changes designed for balance. Not every army has the same power or utility across each FoC, and some of the core units of a codex are found in positions where some armies may spend very little and others more or vice versa. Coming up with an arbitrary cap on % cost would wind up limiting armies more than they already are now.

citadel wrote:

 puma713 wrote:

 SRSFACE wrote:
Anyone else think it'd be kind of nice of 40k adopted something similar to the rules set of WHFB where you're limited in the points value you can spend in any given slot? I think that'd go a long way toward balancing the game. Someone wants to kit out 3 riptides? Great! That'd be fair and fun to fight against in a 3000 point game. I wouldn't mind playing against three riptides with that many points regardless of the army I had.

40K used to do this a long time ago. I, for one, would love to see it return to that, percentage-based list building.

You mentioned in a earlier post that you support the position of not changing core rules of the game, but this goes far beyond small changes designed for balance. Not every army has the same power or utility across each FoC, and some of the core units of a codex are found in positions where some armies may spend very little and others more or vice versa. Coming up with an arbitrary cap on % cost would wind up limiting armies more than they already are now.

I agree. It would take a fundamental changing of how codices are structured to make the percentage-based list building work.

Edit: And for what it's worth, I think armies should be limited to more than what they are now instead of playing with the mockery of the FOC there is already.

Breng77 wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Reecius wrote:
It takes time to change too, fellas. People need a period to acclimate to new rules, especially when it is big changes like GW has launched at us, lately.

Tournaments are a different way to play too, as other's have noted.

GW is trying to push sales, hardcore, right now. We want a balanced game that is fun and fair to play. When you assume people coming to the event will bring the most powerful combos they have available to them, and some of those combos are insanely over powering, you have to think twice about letting them in. It is very easy to ruin the tournament experience for people if the insanity goes too far and then you risk everything you've built in your tournament.

You really can't blame TOs for being conservative. They risk a LOT. Being a player and wanting to use some cool combo is a far different perspective.

The problem is we already have things that are powerful combo's...

And they are single dex, or joined together as allies. They are called Eldar and Tau.

Or Daemonstars, though that isn't as far up as those two.

It's weird hearing "Ban this and that" But not the things that are so actively overpowered that the meta revolves around them.

So instead we should add things that make Tau and Eldar more powerful? This is the part I never get. The game is already broken, so why break it even more? IMO adding formations and super heavies, narrows the meta, invalidates a ton of lists, and makes a lot of games a win loss at the list building phase, so much so that games end on turn 2 one way or the other. I'm fine with character data slates, but formations are poorly implemented, and some are stupidly broken. As for super heavies..ld weapons should not existing standard 40k, they negate the usefulness of too many units.. No weapon should deny all saves and cause instant death, and be able to do so for multiple models at once....d was a mechanic designed to speed up apoc games....nothing more.

Well lets see.

There's only a few things that people agree are bad right?

Ban the Tau Formation, ban ranged D weapons, and generally ban the things that are horrifically bad.

Do you really think things like the Tyranid Formations are going to cause OP?

You cut the fat, not throw the whole cow out when dealing with issue.s

Thimn wrote:

 Reecius wrote:


While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

Any way for us to see how many Warmachine players attended LVO this year? My group is leaning towards a break from 40k to play Warmachine and I was wondering what the adoption rate of more people attending the tournaments is. We will be hitting Adepticon for 40k but afterwards we plan to dabble with WarmaHordes.

I love 40k but for a balanced tournament setting, its bonkers right now. So this may be a case of the grass is always greener but we feel its time to explore different options while the dust settles on the 40k tournament scene. I really don't envy you big event organizers as you are going to get flak from all sides which ever way the dice fall.

You're not alone, dude! Warmahordes is a great game and in the masters invitational, top 16 players in the country? Every major faction represented in the top 10. That is game balance. Not saying 40K is bad at all, it is still my favorite game, but Warmahordes is a true tournament game.

We had just about 80 Warmahordes players at the LVO year 1, which means we can expect well over 100 next year, probably around 120 or so. The game is blowing up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thread

We have about 1/3 of the 40K Championships results in so far and the results are very interesting! I will share with the thread the data once I compile it.

TOs are free to include whatever house rules they wish in THEIR EVENTS. EVEN GW does this. There is no global unified system for running 40k tournaments (and I thank various netherworld unspeakables for this).

If you don't like it, simply DO NOT ATTEND them.
By attending, you have accepted the conditions under which the tournament is run.

Don't just bitch and whine about it on the internets - VOTE with your feet and just don't go to them.

If they want people who use the dataslates to turn up, they'll amend their events to include them.

If they specifically don't want certain players who abuse them to turn up, they're using the driftnet approach. Sure it will net those players, but a few others as well. Such is life.

They will either amend their House Rules or they won't.
They might even drop the idea of ever running another 40k event. I know I am thinking of this.

 chromedog wrote:
TOs are free to include whatever house rules they wish in THEIR EVENTS. EVEN GW does this. There is no global unified system for running 40k tournaments (and I thank various netherworld unspeakables for this).

If you don't like it, simply DO NOT ATTEND them.
By attending, you have accepted the conditions under which the tournament is run.

Don't just bitch and whine about it on the internets - VOTE with your feet and just don't go to them.

If they want people who use the dataslates to turn up, they'll amend their events to include them.

If they specifically don't want certain players who abuse them to turn up, they're using the driftnet approach. Sure it will net those players, but a few others as well. Such is life.

They will either amend their House Rules or they won't.
They might even drop the idea of ever running another 40k event. I know I am thinking of this.

Nobody is contesting the fact that TOs are free to run events how they want. Nobody is bitching and whining. As the thread is titled, it is a respectful request to stop banning dataslates entirely. The OP is simply asking TOs to reconsider the dataslate ban, and look, Reecius has polled the LVO attendants to see what their thoughts are. I don't see why you have to be so indignant.

I haven't read the majority of the thread but I'll chime in.

I would prefer that new unit data slates be permitted (i.e. Cypher, Belakor).

I'm against formations being allowed from data slates.

 chromedog wrote:
TOs are free to include whatever house rules they wish in THEIR EVENTS. EVEN GW does this. There is no global unified system for running 40k tournaments (and I thank various netherworld unspeakables for this).

If you don't like it, simply DO NOT ATTEND them.
By attending, you have accepted the conditions under which the tournament is run.

Don't just bitch and whine about it on the internets - VOTE with your feet and just don't go to them.

If they want people who use the dataslates to turn up, they'll amend their events to include them.

If they specifically don't want certain players who abuse them to turn up, they're using the driftnet approach. Sure it will net those players, but a few others as well. Such is life.

They will either amend their House Rules or they won't.
They might even drop the idea of ever running another 40k event. I know I am thinking of this.

The OP was diplomatic in the way he communicated his proposal for consideration. You, to much caffeine I suspect. If you don't like what he was asking the TO's to consider, don't read it. If you don't like sunlight, don't go out in it. etc. Really dude?

 chromedog wrote:
TOs are free to include whatever house rules they wish in THEIR EVENTS. EVEN GW does this. There is no global unified system for running 40k tournaments (and I thank various netherworld unspeakables for this).

If you don't like it, simply DO NOT ATTEND them.
By attending, you have accepted the conditions under which the tournament is run.

Don't just bitch and whine about it on the internets - VOTE with your feet and just don't go to them.

If they want people who use the dataslates to turn up, they'll amend their events to include them.

If they specifically don't want certain players who abuse them to turn up, they're using the driftnet approach. Sure it will net those players, but a few others as well. Such is life.

They will either amend their House Rules or they won't.
They might even drop the idea of ever running another 40k event. I know I am thinking of this.

The problem is that there aren't enough players at most of these events that feel *that* strongly to either attend or not attend in most cases, even if they really care many people still go anyway because otherwise they don't have an alternative event, and the few that don't go aren't there to make their voices known.

For instance, I don't go to events in my area that don't allow FW stuff (because I prefer to play my DKoK Assault Brigade of late), but that has had zero impact on FW inclusion at any of the local events, whether they allow or disallow it. I've been fortunate enough that I've had alternatives up until recently, but that wasn't always the case and once again seems to be retro-sliding back and me showing up or not showing up isn't going to change anything.

It just means I don't get to play.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
So if Tyranid formations are allowed then how about the Tau formation?

Yes the Tau formation is fine. What is it 700pts? 800pts? Playtest what happens to it when it runs up against the Beaststar especially with the big LOS blocking terrain in the center that tourneys like.

I'm not attacking you here, but I feel the fear of the Tau formation is on paper and not in reality.

The issue is that it pays zero points for a number of high utility special rules and takes no FoC slots so you can still load up on yet more big guns than you'd normally be able to do so. It's literally a "buy this preconfigured box, get X free special rules, and don't worry about that pesky FoC".

Vaktathi,

I'm sorry, I thought your last comment described the Farsight codex when it allies to Tau. You know it ignores the FOC and gets rules for free from the chip it's not supposed to have.

I suppose you can say the Tau Formation has to pay a tax for its special rules. 9 broadsides and a Riptide isn't cheap. You don't get the free rules if you take 8 broadsides do you.

Seriously it's not as bad as it looks on paper. It's like taking 4 Heldrakes. It looks strong on paper, but not in game.

I hope that TOs will allow the use of newer units to keep the tournament system closely matching the actual game.

Hulksmash wrote:I would prefer that new unit data slates be permitted (i.e. Cypher, Belakor).

I'm against formations being allowed from data slates.

Agreed that's a great compromise. The formations add nothing to the game in a positive way, imo, but new units certainly do.

 RiTides wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I would prefer that new unit data slates be permitted (i.e. Cypher, Belakor).

I'm against formations being allowed from data slates.

Agreed that's a great compromise. The formations add nothing to the game in a positive way, imo, but new units certainly do.

The Tyranid ones seem okay.

The SM flyers is okay, and allows for ones with bad to no flyers (DA, SW) to take them without a full SM alliance.

The Cypher one is pretty...yeah it involves chosen, but still they can take it if they want.

The only one that anyone considers an issue is the Tau Formation. So why the blanket ban when there's ONE specific formation people dislike? Currently the issue I don't understand.

 Byte wrote:
I agree with you 100%. Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed?

Isn't this the game where the guys who wrote it tell you right in the front of the book that players should feel free to alter the rules to suit themselves?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
So why the blanket ban when there's ONE specific formation people dislike?

For the same reasons that people want to ban all FW rules because they heard about some guy who won a game once with a FW unit: instinctive "BAN THIS NOW" reaction to anything that changes the game, combined with a bizarre assumption that GW publishes different categories of rules and some of them aren't "real 40k".

 insaniak wrote:

 Byte wrote:
I agree with you 100%. Is it 40K anymore when core rules and approved options aren't allowed?

Isn't this the game where the guys who wrote it tell you right in the front of the book that players should feel free to alter the rules to suit themselves?

So lets continue to limit supplemental rules and ignore the clearly overpowered unbalanced Eldar codex.

 Byte wrote:
So lets continue to limit supplemental rules and ignore the clearly overpowered unbalanced Eldar codex.

Excellent, glad we're agreed.



Seriously, though, I would echo the suggestion that the bigger problem with the slates and supplements isn't so much how unbalanced they are, but simple availability. Keeping track of them all is a pain, and that will only get worse as time goes by. I can well understand TO's just not wanting the headache of keeping up with it all.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I would prefer that new unit data slates be permitted (i.e. Cypher, Belakor).

I'm against formations being allowed from data slates.

Agreed that's a great compromise. The formations add nothing to the game in a positive way, imo, but new units certainly do.

The Tyranid ones seem okay.

The SM flyers is okay, and allows for ones with bad to no flyers (DA, SW) to take them without a full SM alliance.

The Cypher one is pretty...yeah it involves chosen, but still they can take it if they want.

The only one that anyone considers an issue is the Tau Formation. So why the blanket ban when there's ONE specific formation people dislike? Currently the issue I don't understand.

See insaniak's post above.

I'd much prefer allowing FW to most data slates, actually- FW actually adds units, formations are mostly just a money grab by GW. The complication of formations is not worth their inclusion... they add nothing in terms of units, and giving a unit tank Hunter or the like for free just because it's in a formation is downright silly.

 RiTides wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:I would prefer that new unit data slates be permitted (i.e. Cypher, Belakor).

I'm against formations being allowed from data slates.

Agreed that's a great compromise. The formations add nothing to the game in a positive way, imo, but new units certainly do.

The Tyranid ones seem okay.

The SM flyers is okay, and allows for ones with bad to no flyers (DA, SW) to take them without a full SM alliance.

The Cypher one is pretty...yeah it involves chosen, but still they can take it if they want.

The only one that anyone considers an issue is the Tau Formation. So why the blanket ban when there's ONE specific formation people dislike? Currently the issue I don't understand.

See insaniak's post above.

I'd much prefer allowing FW to most data slates, actually- FW actually adds units, formations are mostly just a money grab by GW. The complication of formations is not worth their inclusion... they add nothing in terms of units, and giving a unit tank Hunter or the like for free just because it's in a formation is downright silly.

I have never been a huge fan of FW but I have to agree. At least with FW the rules are in a set number of books not a bunch of electronic dataslates. This is coming from an iPad user who owns all the 6th ed codices except Dark Angels in their iBook form and even the Necron and GK 5th ed codices. If they keep putting out dataslates at the rate they are we will have far too many all over the place for my liking.

 RiTides wrote:


I'd much prefer allowing FW to most data slates, actually- FW actually adds units, formations are mostly just a money grab by GW. The complication of formations is not worth their inclusion... they add nothing in terms of units, and giving a unit tank Hunter or the like for free just because it's in a formation is downright silly.

When you think about it, it is not that far removed from an 'item mall' in a popular mmorpg. "Oh, you're going to purchase 9 broadsides and a riptide?" Here you go, have some USRs."

In the end, there will be no agreement. Just many gamers with many ideas about what they want TO's all over to be running. It doesn't really matter. Very few people will be running all over the country. What you really care about is what the local TO's are going to be running. The local TO also may not care one bit what gamers all over (who won't be attending his tournament) have to say about his format. He'll care more about his local group.

So while it's fun to discuss things here, and share ideas, the very best thing local players can do is work with the local TO's and communicate with them. Then attend the tournaments you want to play in, and skip the ones you don't.

There will never be one format that fits all.

 mikhaila wrote:
In the end, there will be no agreement. Just many gamers with many ideas about what they want TO's all over to be running. It doesn't really matter. Very few people will be running all over the country. What you really care about is what the local TO's are going to be running. The local TO also may not care one bit what gamers all over (who won't be attending his tournament) have to say about his format. He'll care more about his local group.

So while it's fun to discuss things here, and share ideas, the very best thing local players can do is work with the local TO's and communicate with them. Then attend the tournaments you want to play in, and skip the ones you don't.

There will never be one format that fits all.

Of course there's is absolutely no sane retort to your post, but consider the following... This is a local TO and the direction of the "local meta". Hence the birth of my branding of 39K+1.

-Warlord powers rolled out of the main rulebook will use one dice. This result can be used on any of the three tables. This roll cannot be switched to use into a codex specific chart.

-Any models using any FW/IA rules MUST contact a T.O. for approval before Thursday February 6th. Any participants that bring unapproved rules will answer to the discretion of the T.O. the day of the tournament.

-All forces must use their most recent codex, including WD replacements.



1.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex. Also codecies cannot ally with themselves, even if rules allow them to do so.



2.) Dataslates/Inquisitorial Supplement will take an ally slot. Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies. As an added bonus of explanations, we feel that the codex and allies works well and we encourage people to use allies, but being able to use so many different things at once is mind blowing and hard to list check. So in order to prevent this, we enacted the first two rules.



3.) No Escalation or Stronghold Assault units. Fortifications from main rulebook are still allowed.



4.) Tabling an opponent will not give an auto-full point win in objective based missions. The game is meant to be fun and complete wiping an opponent does not follow our idea of good sportsmanship. If you do manage to wipe an opponent, kudos but you must still adhere to mission objectives. Mission are meant for a reason and we don’t want people ignoring them. If you can’t grab the objectives needed, then you did not complete your mission. If you table your opponent with turns left, the game will continue as normal for the player left to try to finish missions.



5.) The Grimoire of True Names will only affect the natural Daemon Invulnerable Save. It will not affect invulnerable saves provided by wargear, psychic powers, fortifications, etc. While we did not want to single ANY codex, we feel that the Grimoire unbalances the game too much in favor of a single army. Instead of banning it, we feel that only affecting Daemons units natural invulnerable saves was a good, fair and fluffy compromise.



6.) Any given unit may only be affected by one blessing and one malediction at a time. This is to prevent units from being completely bogged down by effects that would render them as less than pity grots.

Chess anybody? The rules are pretty established.

That all sounds pretty fair to me...I would have no problem whatsoever playing under those rules.

Here's a better (IMO) idea: limit the FOC rather than the source. The new FOC:

* One primary detachment. 1-2 HQ, 2-6 troops, 0-3 elite, 0-3 fast, 0-3 heavy.

* 0-1 single fortification of 150 points or less (IOW, no fortress of redemption or "units" of fortifications, and no massive fortifications).

* 0-1 of the following choices:
- A single lord of war.
- Upgrade your fortification choice to include any fortification, including massive fortifications and "units" of fortifications.
- A single allied detachment, including C:I and any other "special" allies.
- A single formation.

Within those limits in place the source of the rules is irrelevant. Take freely from codices/FW/supplements/dataslates/whatever, as long as you obey the FOC slot requirements. This approach settles the "is this a legal book" question, limits the total number of different rule sources a single army can contain, and brings the game back closer to a state where each army has its core identity.

It was clear that the release of the tyranid codex left a lot of players disappointed due to its poor internal balance, lack of FOC expansion, and the obvious disadvantage of an inability to ally with another army that compensates its deficiencies. However, they will have a total of 3 dataslates with an estimated 15 formations within just a couple months of the codex's release. It's hard to say that the special attention the nids are getting with slates is by chance, and not because GW is trying to plug holes with codex limitations... Therefore, denying the use of slates in this situation would be to plainly force nid players to just be gimped in tournaments simply because the way GW chose to balance their dex..

With that said, I'm certain arguments could be made for other slates providing additional rules/characters to armies in an attempt to fill gaps to make said army more viable.. Obviously the Tau formation is an outlier to this argument... Statisticians usually ignore outliers and not consider them part of the dataset, I think TOs can do the same.

As for the arguments pointing to the difference between digital vs. print.. srsly? Do you not notice all the book stores in your community closing shop because of the lack of people buying print? To say something is less legitimate because of the medium it is chosen to be released on doesn't make any sense at all.. For reference: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/technology/20amazon.html

 insaniak wrote:
That all sounds pretty fair to me...I would have no problem whatsoever playing under those rules.

And yet it targets only Daemons, rather then Wave Serpants, Riptides, Buffmanders..

Gotta love that bias.

Personally, I'm all for banning 6th ed 40k from tournaments.

Gets rid of all associated issues.

Allies seems to be what's most wrong with the game atm. As a biased Tyranid player I'm all for the ban on Allies. Unfortunately people have jumped all over their crutches and I don't think there's any going back.

Just ban D-weapons, the Tau data slate and Hammer and Anvil deployments (another unnecessary crutch for ranged armies).

As a tyranid player as well (starting) I disagree... I don't begrudge others their allies just because I can't have them. And I don't think the tyranid dataslates add anything worthwhile, at least so far. We'll see once they're all released...

Banning allies, or even just removing Battle Brothers would go a long way for someone like me.

 chromedog wrote:
Personally, I'm all for banning 6th ed 40k from tournaments.

Gets rid of all associated issues.

Wow. Talk about a useless post. Almost as useless as my post commenting on how useless your post is, but seriously, why comment in a thread about 40k tounaments if your only response is just to be a dick? We're trying to come up with creative ways to solve a community issue. If this is your attitude when hosting events, touns, whatever, then stop hosting them.

slaede wrote:
To the best of my understanding, dataslates have been banned largely because of the Tau formation. I haven't seen anyone complaining about the Astartes Stormwing or the three new Tyranid formations. I have no particular gripe with the Tau formation myself, but I see the shennanigans involved with messing with the traditional force org chart, and I feel this is reasonably addressed by letting folks take only a single allied detachment, which a formation would count towards.

My question to TO's is why is everything that comes out in digital format being banned simply because people don't like one of them? Adepticon, Broadside Bash and many other large tourneys have followed LVO's lead in banning every dataslate across the board. Are Be'lakor and Cypher so egregiously overpowered that they merit banning? Are they so much worse than toolbox Commanders letting blobs of Riptides ignore all the rules of the game, or Jetseer Councils flying around indestructibly?

Currently, Eldar are the top of the meta, having taken half the spots in the LVO finals, and owning the very highest win percentage on TOF. Banning Be'lakor and Cypher deprive Chaos Space Marines (considered a very poor army by most) of two very useful and interesting tools to help them compete with the big boys and shake up the meta.

Thus, I humbly request all TO's consider not lumping all dataslates together, and go about reigning in force org shennanigans a bit differently. Thank you.

An interesting post to say the least. I think that most current players both casual and competitive will agree that there is little balance within the game. GW has more or less stated that they have no interest in balancing the game and that it is meant to be srtictly casual, this notion is backed by the lack of competitive support that GW offers compared to a decade ago. So here is my two cents for what it is worth.

1. Should anything within the game be banned? My reaction to this is no, it is not the responsibility of GW to provide units and/or rules that are balanced from army to army. Each TO has an obligation to offer his/her players a format that considers the inbalance of the presnet armies and creates a set of missions or scoring that offsets the inherent imbalance that exists. The missions found within the BRB are again not intended to be balaanced, so why use them? Now this does require TO's to take on more personal responsibility in creating a balancing element and I will be the first to say that is isn't easy, but it is critical to successfully balance a competitive event because GW will not.

2. Referring to what "meta" is currently good vs bad is a tricky subject. There are many, many variables that exist within the game when it comes down to what works and what doesn't much less the fact the game relies on dice rolls. Tournaments are only as good as the TO that sponsor them. If a TO is using imbalanced missions or objectives how can one really know what army is best? I am always skeptical of "netlists" and RT tourament rankings. Lists do vary from area to area and mission/objective styles vary greatly as well. For instance, the OP refers to Eldar being at the top of the current "meta", yet out of 5 matches in my area I have lost to one player and he brought a hydrid Eldar/Tau force. I was playing a drop Salamander list, so what does that tell you? Not much really and that is my point, as a community we have conflated the concept of what is good and bad in the context of a imbalanced game. The "Official" FAQ aren't helping the situation either. First off, they aren't authored by GW's Codex writers or anyone else within the organization, they are written by various gaming groups from various areas in the world. So that being the case how can anyone expect the FAQ rulings to be anything but clarifications that aid the personal armies of those that are asked to make the rulings? I am sure that there are some FAQ contributers that do try and be impartial but it is awful hard to expect someone to be so when they have a personal bias.

In a nut shell, everything that I am hearing from players and TO's alike concerning competitive play comes down to balance. If the competitive community wishes to continue playing competitively they will need to arrive to the understanding that some work will be neccessary to find tha balance that is missing. TO's cannot rely upon using BRB missions and/or banning certain units that are hard to control. It only ends up culling the number of playable armies to a handful which eliminates a dynamic tournament environment (if playing isn't fun then why would anyone do it?). There is no one solution to the problem, it will take a concentrated effort from many TO's using many various tools and techniques. But if things remain status quo then the hobby itself will grow for better or worse.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
That all sounds pretty fair to me...I would have no problem whatsoever playing under those rules.

And yet it targets only Daemons, rather then Wave Serpants, Riptides, Buffmanders..

Gotta love that bias.

It does seem to be very much that way not dealing with the issues with those units

citadel wrote:

 chromedog wrote:
Personally, I'm all for banning 6th ed 40k from tournaments.

Gets rid of all associated issues.

Wow. Talk about a useless post. Almost as useless as my post commenting on how useless your post is, but seriously, why comment in a thread about 40k tounaments if your only response is just to be a dick? We're trying to come up with creative ways to solve a community issue. If this is your attitude when hosting events, touns, whatever, then stop hosting them.

You missed the point entirely. Sure, it's an absurd point...except that i know groups that play 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition 40k still.

I took his post to be an extreme example of what's in this thread, and he made it to show the absurdity in others. Most peoples arguments boil down to "this is how I think the game should be played, why won't TO's run the game this way?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Byte wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:
In the end, there will be no agreement. Just many gamers with many ideas about what they want TO's all over to be running. It doesn't really matter. Very few people will be running all over the country. What you really care about is what the local TO's are going to be running. The local TO also may not care one bit what gamers all over (who won't be attending his tournament) have to say about his format. He'll care more about his local group.

So while it's fun to discuss things here, and share ideas, the very best thing local players can do is work with the local TO's and communicate with them. Then attend the tournaments you want to play in, and skip the ones you don't.

There will never be one format that fits all.

Of course there's is absolutely no sane retort to your post, but consider the following... This is a local TO and the direction of the "local meta". Hence the birth of my branding of 39K+1.

-Warlord powers rolled out of the main rulebook will use one dice. This result can be used on any of the three tables. This roll cannot be switched to use into a codex specific chart.

-Any models using any FW/IA rules MUST contact a T.O. for approval before Thursday February 6th. Any participants that bring unapproved rules will answer to the discretion of the T.O. the day of the tournament.

-All forces must use their most recent codex, including WD replacements.



1.) Supplemental Codecies will no longer be able to ally to their base codex. Also codecies cannot ally with themselves, even if rules allow them to do so.



2.) Dataslates/Inquisitorial Supplement will take an ally slot. Taking units from many, many different books and ignoring the force organization chart is too much. This change will make dataslates an interesting addition to the game, without allowing for truly bizzare armies. As an added bonus of explanations, we feel that the codex and allies works well and we encourage people to use allies, but being able to use so many different things at once is mind blowing and hard to list check. So in order to prevent this, we enacted the first two rules.



3.) No Escalation or Stronghold Assault units. Fortifications from main rulebook are still allowed.



4.) Tabling an opponent will not give an auto-full point win in objective based missions. The game is meant to be fun and complete wiping an opponent does not follow our idea of good sportsmanship. If you do manage to wipe an opponent, kudos but you must still adhere to mission objectives. Mission are meant for a reason and we don’t want people ignoring them. If you can’t grab the objectives needed, then you did not complete your mission. If you table your opponent with turns left, the game will continue as normal for the player left to try to finish missions.



5.) The Grimoire of True Names will only affect the natural Daemon Invulnerable Save. It will not affect invulnerable saves provided by wargear, psychic powers, fortifications, etc. While we did not want to single ANY codex, we feel that the Grimoire unbalances the game too much in favor of a single army. Instead of banning it, we feel that only affecting Daemons units natural invulnerable saves was a good, fair and fluffy compromise.



6.) Any given unit may only be affected by one blessing and one malediction at a time. This is to prevent units from being completely bogged down by effects that would render them as less than pity grots.

Chess anybody? The rules are pretty established.

I actually have no problem with someone running those rules. I'd play in it. And if i didn't like them, I wouldn't.

If you don't like those rules, why not run a tournament with what you do like. Give players a choice. And more tournaments is always good.

You missed the point entirely. Sure, it's an absurd point...except that i know groups that play 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition 40k still. I took his post to be an extreme example of what's in this thread, and he made it to show the absurdity in others. Most peoples arguments boil down to "this is how I think the game should be played, why won't TO's run the game this way?"

No, I got the irony and cynicism just fine. I felt obligated to point out that his post did nothing to further the discussion at hand. Sure, negating the entire issue is an option, but does it really need to be positioned?

And now you've made two posts that... well, really aren't furthering the discussion either . Point's made!

I think the "39+1K" label is the most telling. Some people are really, really convinced that there is one "right" way to play warhammer, and that is "40K" and anything else is wrong. But the reality is, every single event, even GW's own events, make specifications on what they're allowing, what kind of missions they're running, terrain setups, etc. Each event is different, and while some things tie them all together, they're never all going to be identical.

But label all tournaments as 39+1K and play "true 40K" in your house... leaves the events for people to attend who understand that TOs can and must make rulings in order to run their events. It's the nature of this game, since GW doesn't organize tourney play and seems to have no interest in making rulings that are needed to run tournaments (unlike, for instance, Privateer Press, who take a very strong interest in doing such things and making those rulings... almost too strong an interest, really!).

As a final thought... if you're the only one playing "true 40K", but it's in your house... does that, by it's very definition, make it "house rules"? I'm joking, but you get the point- everybody is playing by house rules... or at least, everybody who actually is trying to run an event and deal with rules conflicts, etc. As mikhaila said, most TOs welcome others to start their own events if they want to see an event run differently... but people who actually do soon realize that in order to make things work, they're going to have to make some calls/rulings on what to allow, etc. And those calls will always be unpopular with some percentage of people. You can't please everybody... but you can make rulings that make the game as playable as possible for most people.

As an example, I don't know of any event other than the Gladiator at AdeptiCon that allows all FW army lists (at least, I think it does?). So you've got that at one end of the spectrum, and an event that allows "no allies" at the other. In between there is a whole gradient of events, as there should be. And regarding this discussion, it's unlikely for ALL events to ever allow ALL dataslates... but having most events allow the dataslates that include new units is a much more reasonable goal to have (as the OP respectfully laid out, even in his title ). So, that's an attainable goal, whereas rhetoric about "true 40K" or "39K+1" is just a rabbit hole that leads nowhere.

I have been playing in tournaments for a while and this is the first edition I can remember that TOs are struggling with how to run their tournaments. I think that is very telling as well, as is the simple fact that threads like this exist at all.

 puma713 wrote:
I have been playing in tournaments for a while and this is the first edition I can remember that TOs are struggling with how to run their tournaments. I think that is very telling as well, as is the simple fact that threads like this exist at all.

This is a good point. In years past there were things you debated about, but they look so very small in hindsight compared to today.

GW is tossing rules up online, putting out new codices, and supplements at a rapid pace. And they consider them all to be core 40k rules. Because it's all about selling as many models each month as possible.

So does a TO include it all , when the only reason some rules exist is because someone at GW wanted to up sales by getting people to buy 6 riptides? But then the guy that bought them wants to play them, doesn't he?
Do you cave and let the guy that bought a Warhound get to use it? Or the guy with the cardboard scratchbuilt titan play too, because it shouldn't be 'pay to win' ? Hell, does a TO even have access to all the rules people want put in? So much fun having to buy an endless collection of GW downloads, Codices, FW books, just so you can work to put on a tournament and not get to play yourself...

Used to be we argued about playing 1750 or 1850, and how much terrain to use.

 mikhaila wrote:

 puma713 wrote:
I have been playing in tournaments for a while and this is the first edition I can remember that TOs are struggling with how to run their tournaments. I think that is very telling as well, as is the simple fact that threads like this exist at all.

This is a good point. In years past there were things you debated about, but they look so very small in hindsight compared to today.

GW is tossing rules up online, putting out new codices, and supplements at a rapid pace. And they consider them all to be core 40k rules. Because it's all about selling as many models each month as possible.

So does a TO include it all , when the only reason some rules exist is because someone at GW wanted to up sales by getting people to buy 6 riptides? But then the guy that bought them wants to play them, doesn't he?
Do you cave and let the guy that bought a Warhound get to use it? Or the guy with the cardboard scratchbuilt titan play too, because it shouldn't be 'pay to win' ? Hell, does a TO even have access to all the rules people want put in? So much fun having to buy an endless collection of GW downloads, Codices, FW books, just so you can work to put on a tournament and not get to play yourself...

Used to be we argued about playing 1750 or 1850, and how much terrain to use.

Ahhh, the good ol days.

0wlc0der wrote:

With that said, I'm certain arguments could be made for other slates providing additional rules/characters to armies in an attempt to fill gaps to make said army more viable.. Obviously the Tau formation is an outlier to this argument... Statisticians usually ignore outliers and not consider them part of the dataset, I think TOs can do the same.

Not really, Apple and Organs.
The Tau one isnt a Outlier, it is just part of the Trend Where GW is trying to make money of hot selling products. the problem is formations allow for the complete breaking of the FOC chart.

I like the idea of the original post but I think the problem is much deeper than just dataslates.

First off...

How is a dataslate any different than a White Dwarf rules addition?
- An official update that may eventually be part of a larger tome. This happened with the Book of the Astronomicon, Compilation, Compendium, Chapter Approved, Main Rule Books and more!
- If you do not use those models you do not have to buy the rules.
- It is 2014, most players have access to a smartphone, tablet or computer to get a copy of the rules that want to use or have knowledge of. If you are so afraid of technology, go bury your head in the sand until the end of the Age of Strife or just wait a couple months and buy it in print.

in grumpy old man voice Back in my day, we had to get a White Dwarf subscription to get a chance to have new rules and more than half the time we got square base filler!

I do like the new White Dwarf format but it appears that we will not get COMPLETE rules there like we do from the Black Library releases. I guess when the Imperial Knight stuff hits in the coming weeks we will see for sure if we can get all the rules we need there or have to go to Black Library, GW Digital or GW print. For now, most of the new content is digital - WHICH ALLOWS US TO PLAY WITH OUR MODELS (sooo glad I have Cypher and Be'lakor in my cases), so what's wrong with that?

I have been playing since Rogue Trader and have seen the more negative reactions from players and TO's during 6th edition than ever before. I have seen bans on fliers, Death from the Skies, select units from FW books (no fliers allowed after 6E), FW altogether, dataslates, formations, White Dwarf, fortifications, allies, ally matrix, select wargear or rules for individual codexes and more. Is the game that bad? If it is, why are you playing? I feel that the real issue today is the general attitude on message boards and blogs these days. I will not call out any in particular but you can see for yourself that sites that were once invaluable resources for hobby tips and new ways to enjoy the game are now just advertising and rants. Maybe you might want to get some fresh new bookmarks that fit with your hobby style more.

I have read many comments here and on similar threads that are supposed to be based on "game balance". For me, these items seem to never be discussed yet throw off game balance more than any of the hot topics:

Hills count as area terrain.

Ok, so this seemed to be started by stores/clubs/events that did not have enough scenery so they called hills "area terrain". In 6E, Monstrous Creatures get cover saves if even a toe is on the base. Wonder why Riptides and Wraithknights have had a great time??? Get off your bum and build some proper terrain! This includes players! TO's would be thrilled to get help in this area and I do not think any would ever turn down good quality terrain to be loaned to them.

Not enough proper Terrain

Look at pics of some of the tournaments out there and you can see that most of the terrain is nowhere near where it should be for 6E. 25%+ coverage of the table is not enough anymore! We have 8" high beasties and fliers, so make your terrain taller! Generic terrain that was fine in the past will not cut it in 6E. Look at some of the event pictures and results over the past two years and you will see why some armies won easily.

Getting away from balanced armies

Unfortunately, game balance has never existed in 40K. It may have gotten close with a few armies, but never for the whole game.

- 1E - Roll on a chart for X points, maybe get a bolt pistol or maybe a conversion beamer!
- 2E - Playing against poorly armored troops? Better buy that Virus Grenade so you can wipe them out first turn.
- 3E - Finally we start to see regular codex releases, but that slowed down to the point where some armies still are left in the dust
- 4E - The game gets better but poor FAQs and outdated books makes many armies suffer
- 5E - Still waiting for 3E books to be updated. An FAQ that says just don't use their special rules doesn't help.
- 6E - New game! But my army_01 doesn't have anti-air, a new shiny book, or the ally combo that TFG has!


The game is still about models. Sure you could play vassal with a select group of composition rules but I think we all enjoy playing with models on a tabletop more. Try to take a step back and remember why you started this hobby in the first place.

/preach off


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And some replies to previous posts:

kronk, and other who want a physical book
Black Library has done compilations and they said they would have one done for this content in the future. As for a physical book, I think you need to buy the E-book edition and then can have it printed easily (not entirely sure that is the correct format for printing so correct me if you know the right one). I have seen some that players had printed and bound and they turned out quite nice for just a couple bucks.

OverwatchCNC
See above about Compilations and printing. We went from 17 codexes in 5th edition to now having 7 of them replaced and another 6+ supplementals as well as other sources for new rules in less than two years. There are lots of new sources for rules and the argument that it is hard for tournament gamers to know every rule is holding less water all the time (not directed toward you but this was also a common argument against Forge World for quite a long time)

puma713
If you are on the boards here then you probably have the ability to have access to the rules.

So, you may not have an iDevice, do you currently carry 25+ books to a tournament? Plus a dozen Forge World books? I do not know what the total is now, but in November 2012, a hard copy of every book totaled up to 88 pounds!!!

Yeah, 5th edition allowed players to know most of the rules easier but we were also playing with codexes from 3rd edition!!! It is a lot easier to stay current with the rules if they don't get updated!

dkellyj
Yes, the digital files could be tampered with but I have seen more shenanigans with Army Builder than with any other method of cheating (and honest mistakes) and it is still widely used.

Choose your own way to play'ers
You nailed it! GW even posted on the Digital Editions page a couple months ago that the new digital content is just as easy to include/exclude from your games as a print codex. I am just waiting for an event that bans Codex Eldar or Tau - that will make me giggle.

0wlc0der wrote:
With that said, I'm certain arguments could be made for other slates providing additional rules/characters to armies in an attempt to fill gaps to make said army more viable.. Obviously the Tau formation is an outlier to this argument... Statisticians usually ignore outliers and not consider them part of the dataset, I think TOs can do the same.

Think about that for a moment. Tournament organisers ignoring the problems with all the most outlying powerful units....
....
You're gonna have a bad time.

I think there are a few big problems with dataslates/escalation/allies/etc:
1) It makes themed armies even worse than they were before. Trying to run a hormagaunt horde? Not going to work
2) It makes armies look stupid. Showing up with Allied Eldar/Dark Eldar with a Tau formation and imperial fortifications?
3) It makes armies have no weaknesses. Get your shooting from Tau and combat ability from Marines. Or whatever.
and mainly:
4) It focusses high-performing lists towards hyper-analysed trick armies, rather than your 'traditional' take-all-comers army.

 Reecius wrote:

Thimn wrote:

 Reecius wrote:


While tournaments are healthy, and growing, I see more and more people moving to other games. GW needs to pull a rabbit out of their hat because we're watching the same people coming to our events every year, but playing not GW games. 40K is going strong and I am not worried that it will vanish or anything like that, but it most certainly not the dominant game that it was by a mile. We as TOs are very sensitive to that and don't want to further the changes by opening the door to more insanity.

Any way for us to see how many Warmachine players attended LVO this year? My group is leaning towards a break from 40k to play Warmachine and I was wondering what the adoption rate of more people attending the tournaments is. We will be hitting Adepticon for 40k but afterwards we plan to dabble with WarmaHordes.

I love 40k but for a balanced tournament setting, its bonkers right now. So this may be a case of the grass is always greener but we feel its time to explore different options while the dust settles on the 40k tournament scene. I really don't envy you big event organizers as you are going to get flak from all sides which ever way the dice fall.

You're not alone, dude! Warmahordes is a great game and in the masters invitational, top 16 players in the country? Every major faction represented in the top 10. That is game balance. Not saying 40K is bad at all, it is still my favorite game, but Warmahordes is a true tournament game.

We had just about 80 Warmahordes players at the LVO year 1, which means we can expect well over 100 next year, probably around 120 or so. The game is blowing up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Thread

We have about 1/3 of the 40K Championships results in so far and the results are very interesting! I will share with the thread the data once I compile it.

You also had Templecon that weekend that drew people away as well. So you had the big name players both in RI and in LV.

 Tironum wrote:
How is a dataslate any different than a White Dwarf rules addition?

For one, at least back when White Dwarf was good, you weren't just getting the rules addition for your money. You could also cut out or copy the rules piece, and compile it with any other rules additions you had collected, so that you could have them all in a single volume rather than having to open multiple digital files to get at all of the rules you need.

- If you do not use those models you do not have to buy the rules.

Have to? No, of course not.

But for competitive players, keeping abreast of the current rules is kind of important. Making those rules harder to keep track of is therefore not going to be popular with those players.

I have been playing since Rogue Trader and have seen the more negative reactions from players and TO's during 6th edition than ever before. I have seen bans on fliers, Death from the Skies, select units from FW books (no fliers allowed after 6E), FW altogether, dataslates, formations, White Dwarf, fortifications, allies, ally matrix, select wargear or rules for individual codexes and more. Is the game that bad? If it is, why are you playing?

Because once people cut the things they don't like from the game, they still enjoy the game, would be my guess...

I feel that the real issue today is the general attitude on message boards and blogs these days.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, that's not the issue. It's a symptom of the issue... which is GW's recent treatment of their games, and of the people who like them.

In most cases, the companies that do more to actively engage with their customers receive nowhere near the level of anger about the things they do wrong as GW do, because the relationship with their customers isn't just one-way.

The attitude towards GW isn't going to change until GW decides to go back to actually relating to their customers.

Hills count as area terrain.

Ok, so this seemed to be started by stores/clubs/events that did not have enough scenery so they called hills "area terrain".

Actually, it started back in 4th edition, with a ruleset that in one section said that hills shouldn't be area terrain and in another used them as an example of the sort of terrain that should be area terrain...

As a result of that, and the general misunderstanding of the LOS rules that resulted in many people just treating everything as area terrain, many players wound up treating hills as area terrain and it's just sort of stuck.

Added to which, since most tournaments use terrain that is made up of larger pieces with defined base areas, at least from my experience it's quite common for players to just call everything area terrain to save time classifying everything. Nothing to do with not having enough terrain.

Trasvi wrote:

0wlc0der wrote:
With that said, I'm certain arguments could be made for other slates providing additional rules/characters to armies in an attempt to fill gaps to make said army more viable.. Obviously the Tau formation is an outlier to this argument... Statisticians usually ignore outliers and not consider them part of the dataset, I think TOs can do the same.

Think about that for a moment. Tournament organisers ignoring the problems with all the most outlying powerful units....
....
You're gonna have a bad time.

I think there are a few big problems with dataslates/escalation/allies/etc:
1) It makes themed armies even worse than they were before. Trying to run a hormagaunt horde? Not going to work
2) It makes armies look stupid. Showing up with Allied Eldar/Dark Eldar with a Tau formation and imperial fortifications?
3) It makes armies have no weaknesses. Get your shooting from Tau and combat ability from Marines. Or whatever.
and mainly:
4) It focusses high-performing lists towards hyper-analysed trick armies, rather than your 'traditional' take-all-comers army.

Sorry, regarding what I said with "ignore outliers", I meant discard them, or adjust them so they are more similar to the majority of the observed data points... Specifically, to disallow or nerf the tau formation..

I don't understand your first point, but totally agree with 2,3,and 4.. Allies are dumb.. GW has a hard enough time balancing a single book, but now it has to also consider what a dex can do with allies? Ridiculous.. I'm not a fan of formations/slates or allies, but I do think if you allow an army to benefit from one advantage such as allies, it would be wrong to deny another army to benefit from another advantage such as formations or slate characters..

0wlc0der wrote:
GW has a hard enough time balancing a single book, but now it has to also consider what a dex can do with allies?

That's quite a presumption that a lot of people disagree with. It's debatable whether GW even cares about balance any more, either in one codex or between multiple codices.

0wlc0der wrote:
I'm not a fan of formations/slates or allies, but I do think if you allow an army to benefit from one advantage such as allies, it would be wrong to deny another army to benefit from another advantage such as formations or slate characters..

That's quite a leap from one thing (allowing allies, which is near-universal) to another (allowing formations in particular). And again, right now the most broken formation also happens to be for one of the strongest armies that people tend to ally! So it can actually make the situation worse.

I think the trend to limit things in tournaments is going to continue, as GW just throws all these random rules out there... someone has to sort through them, and right now that's being left up to event organizers.