My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

(Edit: And also we should eat Irish children.)

I like it. I always have.

Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

I would contend that going that far puts those armies without access to divination at a disadvantage against those that do. With apologies to Necrons, Orks, Sisters and Nids.

How about No? Is there really a big problem things like this? What is the problem of the buff mander with other units? Why is the Baron so bad?

slaede wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

I used to agree until the Space Marine codex came out. I think any ruling on allies would need to exclude choices from the Space Marine codex. Not their supplements, just the main codex.

I would contend that going that far puts those armies without access to divination at a disadvantage against those that do.

Then amend Battle Brothers to read that no IC can join a unit not from it's codex. Then casting divination is fine just not being a member of the squad. I am not saying get rid of Allies altogether just Battle Brothers.

I replied to the wrong post. Was meant for coldsteel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
How about No? Is there really a big problem things like this? What is the problem of the buff mander with other units? Why is the Baron so bad?

Well, a lot of folks seem to think they're a bit game-breaking when combined with certain other units.

There will always be game breakers. Removes the baron? Cool now the deathstar is only super good, not duper. Buffmander is what makes some units gd, like Lascannon Devs or other such units like Dark Reapers.
Fearless IG? OMG, its not like I want my IG blob to fall back because of on bad roll, depriving me of points and one of my few scoring units.

I'd be in favor of this for some events- it certainly does seem to be the main "issue" with battle brothers. It's not a huge tweak, but deals with a lot of aggravating scenarios that have resulted.

I don't see it being widely adopted, but I'd certainly attend an event that decided to try this out.

You could just give allies "Demonic Instability" or whatever so they can have "battle brothers" like Chaos, lol!

Well it's not really a modest proposal. My vote is no.

I have mixed feeling about the idea. I do agree that battle brothers independent characters are where most the problems people have arise, but something like this I would only be ok with it if it would be widely accepted by the vast majority of tournaments. IMO it would not be good for the game if a random GT or two made such drastic rules changes and splintered the game even more.

I do think it's funny though that you called this a modest proposal, I was expecting to find something satirical about eating babies as a solution to the woes of battle brothers.

My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

 JGrand wrote:

My post concerning dataslates generated a fair amount of discussion, and it seemed the overall feeling is that most dataslates are fine. One topic being brought up to address balance issues is to ban battle brothers. Goatboy has suggested this as well as several other prominent players.

Rather than making everybody allies of convenience outright, simply create a house rule that prohibits any independent character from one detachment from joining a unit from any other detachment. You can still cast psychic powers and benefit from warlord traits on your battle brothers, but no Baron with Warlocks on bikes, no fearless IG blobs, no O'vesa star etc...

That gets rid of a lot of shennanigans, but Eldar can still twin-link their Tau allies, DA and SW can twin link their IG allies, Daemons can twin link their CSM allies, etc... It's not abusive, but still allows some benefit for taking fluffier ally combos, and it's completely fair to all factions, assuming Nids one day get an ally...

The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

Good points all the way around. I think this goes a long way towards ending the most abusive combos without effecting the naturally strong builds and units contained in each codex. I hope the rumored 7th edition in May will address the issues with the entire Ally matrix and BB in particular. A bit pie in the sky I know...

Battle Brothers aren't the problem. Eldar are.

Why do people want to play 3rd edition so badly? Go back to days of Rhino-spam?

No. As a TO, I wouldn't do this. As a player, I wouldn't want it.

It's a game mechanic that people are still adjusting to, but I don't think we should just ban it. The Overwatch rule also gives some armies a distinct advantage over others, and I don't think we should ban that. The Ignores Cover USR is pretty instrumental in making certain armies 'superior' in the eyes of the community, but I don't think we should ban that either.

If a TO actually DID this, I would highly suspect he was attempting to make the tournament less challenging for one or more of his friends.

Instead of fighting change in 40k by banning all the rules from the BRB we don't like, we should try to adapt. It's a living, dynamic game, which is part of what makes it so great, and part of why it has endured for as long as it has. Let's not throw that away just because a new change makes us a little uncomfortable.

Jim, from another thread that I believe applies here.

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.

You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

Some events do. But it's a bad comparison anyway, because mysterious terrain's inclusion or exclusion isn't something that tends to affect decisions about attending -- i.e. ticket sales.

TOs have a real dilemma with a lot of this stuff right now. Try to rein in some aspects of 6th, and you may make the more average tourney goer happier at the cost of losing more competitive players who don't like having their tourney build messed with. Do nothing and you may keep the competitive guys but lose the average player who's tired of facing Baron von Seerstar.

It's a really tough decision, complicated by the fact that people don't agree on the worst problems in the game right now. And it's not easy to say "damn the torpedoes" with thousands of dollars at stake.

 JGrand wrote:


The idea isn't bad, but it is important to examine what specifically the proposal would stop:

-Seer Council would still exist, but lose "Hit and Run", which is pretty crucial. The build could still be used, but players would have to be more careful.

-Screamer-star is untouched.

-O'vesa-star gets neutered pretty hard. Losing the Buffmander is bad for business.

-Cent-star can't go all out via a Buffmander or other characters.

Pure Eldar with Serpents/Wraithknights, Jetbikes is untouched. Standard Taudar can no longer hide a Farseer attached to a Riptide, but is relatively untouched. Daemons/CSM alliances are still potent, and remain untouched. Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct. Marines with other Marine combos, which aren't all that bad at all, are now weaker. The Inquisition Codex may as well not exist. GK/Crons/Orks all have no bat bros and stay the same. Nids are still Nids.

I think that the idea has some merit as a relatively non-intrusive way of powering down some of the crazier deathstars that have taken over right now. I do think that it requires some careful playtesting before any kind of implementation though.

Indeed. The Seer Council becomes extremely susceptible to getting tarpitted by an Ironclad without hit and run. It only works because of the Baron. This is already the major weakness of the Screamerstar. Every turn it isn't flying around wiping something out is a victory for the other guy.

The Screamerstar and Seer Councils would be further nerfed by the 2+/4+ that is gaining popularity as a way to deal with that bit of brokenness.

Disallowing the Buffmander from joining a O'vesa simply prevents Tau from granting TL shooting with ignores cover and tank hunters to two Riptides instead of one, but can still be used in a Farsight bomb, or with a single Riptide, or Broadsides. Beaststars would be completely untouched, but they're not particularly abusive in the first place. (Edit, well I guess you couldn't attach the Farseer with the Shard to make it fearless anymore.)

My original post is in reaction to having read multiple prominent figures in the community suggest making all BB into allies of convenience. I suggest a less heavy-handed version.

 gorgon wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

Nevermind Jim addressed it.

Jimsolo wrote:

OverwatchCNC wrote:You're over simplifying the issues. I would argue that those people opposed to changing the single most abusive aspect of the game don't want to do it out of their own, or their friends, best interests because those people, or friends, are currently abusing the BB rules.

A fair point, and no way to defend against it with anything other than a "nuh-uh!"

I think that we can argue about whether or not to ban dataslates, or Escalation, or any other add-on material. But when we start talking about banning core rules from the main rulebook, it's definitely crossing a line into different territory. Ultimately, I can't support it, and would be very leery about playing it a tournament that did.

hotsauceman1 wrote:How is it abusing the rules when it is clearly allowed within the rules?

You can only abuse the rules if the abuse is allowed within them. Otherwise you're breaking the rules, not abusing them.

Most events already change the core rules. Are your events using Mysterious terrain?

Some events do. But it's a bad comparison anyway, because mysterious terrain's inclusion or exclusion isn't something that tends to affect decisions about attending -- i.e. ticket sales.

TOs have a real dilemma with a lot of this stuff right now. Try to rein in some aspects of 6th, and you may make the more average tourney goer happier at the cost of losing more competitive players who don't like having their tourney build messed with. Do nothing and you may keep the competitive guys but lose the average player who's tired of facing Baron von Seerstar.

It's a really tough decision, complicated by the fact that people don't agree on the worst problems in the game right now. And it's not easy to say "damn the torpedoes" with thousands of dollars at stake.

I am fairly certain 0 of the GTs, and even most RTs, run Straight Book missions. Few of them run the missions with Player Placed Terrain, Mysterious Terrain, or the correct sequence of events for placing fortifications, rolling traits, placing objectives, or choosing sides. Because going by the book means having a less competitive game that feels more lopsided from the get go. The way BB work creates the same situation for most people who come up against lists abusing the BB rules and Allies Matrix. If TOs are more than willing to tweak one aspect of the core book, and every one of them does in one way or another, why not fix the single biggest imposition to balanced games? Mysterious Terrain, along with all my other examples, have far less impact on the playability, enjoyment, and competitive nature of the game than the BB and Allies Matrix.

The average players are who TOs need. The top players will play whatever the shifted meta tells them to play next. They will buy it, paint it (or pay for it to be painted) and play it. Those top players aren't going anywhere.

I think if you wanted to go this route, you don't need sweeping changes per se. For example, is a SM character in an IG blob really that bad? I don't think so.

It is certain, specific models that cause issues.

The Baron.
O'Vessa
Buffmander
Farseer

To a lesser extent, Coteaz.

Those are the primary troublemakers that cause the truly insane combos to pop up.

But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

 JGrand wrote:
Guard blobs go from endangered species to extinct.

What about the meta changed to make these cease to exist, by the way? Tony Kopach won Nova with it and now you never see them?

Very nice post, just had a question about that part.

Also, I agree with hotsauceman that punishing certain characters is less preferable to simply not allowing allied characters to join units from the other detachment. It's such an easy fix that stops the vast majority of stupid combos, and is applied evenly across the board. It's certainly much better than simply making all battle brothers into allies of convenience! Does the job in a less heavy-handed way, as slaede said.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

Yes because blanket bans work so well when the main issue is a few very specific things.

These few combo's are of the 'This actively changes the meta so much that everyone has to revolve around it or die.' sort

Yeah it looks like favorites.. Because a few bad apples are going to spoil that bunch. You don't just toss the whole thing out when you know which ones are bad.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

That's because it's logical to do so when those "favorites" are wiping the floor at tournaments. If one piece of something is broken and another isn't, you only throw out the broken bits if it's possible to do so. Your earlier arguments to this effect are also silly:

Removes the baron? Cool now the deathstar is only super good, not duper.

Actually, it's far worse, as it's not that good in combat - being stuck there ruins most of the uses of it which make it so tough.

Buffmander is what makes some units gd, like Lascannon Devs or other such units like Dark Reapers.

So? Virus bomb in 2e made terrible armies win, yet it was banned because it made the best even less beatable. You don't analyse things by looking at the reasonable combinations, you look at them with the best possible. That's like looking at the collapse of Enron, then saying nothing needed to be done because most companies didn't mess up with the same tools. So? It's meaningless - they're too good in conjunction with some units, lesser ones are irrelevant.

Fearless IG? OMG, its not like I want my IG blob to fall back because of on bad roll, depriving me of points and one of my few scoring units.

Tough luck? Almost every other horde needs to deal with falling back in some form, why on earth should IG be the sole exception? Plus, if you have few scoring units with an IG/SM combination... what on Earth are you playing?! Morale is in the game for a reason and, though GW seems to like giving everyone immunity to it, it should bear some impact on the game.

Something definitely needs doing about these combinations. I really don't see 40k continuing in its current state much longer without a substantial comp consideration. The rules are in a worse shape than Fantasy, which has almost died its death already sadly; let's not let the same happen to 40k.

What about the meta changed to make these cease to exist, by the way? Tony Kopach won Nova with it and now you never see them?

Very nice post, just had a question about that part.

Thanks! To answer your question, Tau and Eldar came around. The Guard Blob was a nice response to flyers (specifically Cron Air), which didn't have the volume of fire to put them down. The ability to get cover easily via a 50 point Aegis helped a ton too. As of now, Tau/Eldar can easily drop half a blob in a turn. It isn't necessarily a dead unit, but it is no longer as good as it was.

 Reecius wrote:
I think if you wanted to go this route, you don't need sweeping changes per se. For example, is a SM character in an IG blob really that bad? I don't think so.

It is certain, specific models that cause issues.

The Baron.
O'Vessa
Buffmander
Farseer

To a lesser extent, Coteaz.

Those are the primary troublemakers that cause the truly insane combos to pop up.

If you wanted to do it that way, I wouldn't object. It just seemed most fair to have everyone using the same standard. Plus, you catch the next abusive combo before it happens. Who knows what IG holds next month?

I came into this thread expecting a celebration of the proud Irish traditions of infanticide and cannibalism, and instead I got a reasonable proposal for fixing Allies. 0/10, would not read again.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
But then you are just punishing certain codexes and you look like you are playing favorites

You're not punishing codices your punishing abusive lists. The codices themselves will still be more than viable without those characters being able to join BB squads.

Reece, I would agree with that list. Personally I would prefer a change to BB and the Ally Matrix as a whole but I could live with those characters being banned from BB status. Or allow Escalation into the events

The reason that the BB rule should be eliminated is two-fold:


1) It greatly widens the performance level gap between themed armies and hardcore armies.

2) It greatly helps to remove competitive army composition from anything even resembling a force that matches the background fiction of the game.


On point #2: 40K is, and always has been, a game based on it's background. The goal of it's rules, therefore, has been to bring that background to life on the tabletop. Throughout it's long history, those rules have succeeded in varying degrees to accomplish this goal. However, the BB rules reward players for finding Independent Characters that have special rules which can then be used with allied units to produce incredibly effective results. This comboing of IC with allied BB units has absolutely no basis in the background of the game...it is being done *purely* for the rules manipulation potential that it brings.

Therefore, more than ever before, highly competitive armies do not represent anything close to the background presented for the game. This is a problem because in the past, even highly competitive players could create armies that were both incredibly functional, but still represented an army that wasn't out of place within the existing background material. That meant just looking at armies at a tournament was still a celebration of the game's background in general, as well as being a showcase of competitive armies.

The more disconnected highly competitive army compositions get from the source background of the game, the less they inspire players who like the game for it's background. The more it starts to turn into almost chess like quality of just taking certain pieces for your army because they work well and not caring what faction they come from or how ridiculous it is in the universe of 40K to do so.

You might say: 'well it's no big deal if a tournament force composition for an army really matches it's background material...anyone who gets too caught up on that isn't going to win tournaments anyway.'

But that's the point. 40K is a game based on a background, so a good set of rules should mean that a quality army composition should still represent something that is found in the background of the game. When competitive army builds no longer do represent the background of the game, then you potentially lose a chunk of people that do care about that stuff, and it's never a good thing to be losing potential tournament players.


On point #1: Ever since 40K has been played as a tournament game, there have been players that show up to win with highly tuned lists and those players who just show up with an army that they like the look and/or background of (i.e. a themed list) and don't really care about how well it plays.

In the past, the gap between these theme players and the competitive players wasn't *that* huge, and in fact some really talented competitive players could/would bring what would be considered by many to be a themed list and still do really well.

The BB rules have helped to widen this gap to the point where someone playing a themed list really has no chance against an army list that is using BBs to exploit combinations of special rules. This makes those theme players more irrelevant than they ever have in a tournament, which can only be disheartening to those players who do like to bring heavily themed lists. So again, as with point #2, this is the case of the BB rule helping to foster a situation that encourages less players to attend tournaments, because it says that if you like playing with themed army lists, you might as well not even bother attending the tournament.

I second what Yakface has put forth...the baron rolling around with a bunch of warlocks and farseers spits in the face of the reason I got into the game...please do not get me wrong, I attend tourneys all over the east coast looking for competitive games and mostly to socialize...it just used to be that I thought I had a chance at placing well...Now I know my best games will be at the end of tourney's once the BB deathstars have all hit the top tables...However before I personally would advocate sweeping rules changes, I think the meta still needs time to adjust...possibly just a bump in the road...

Eyjio wrote:

Something definitely needs doing about these combinations. I really don't see 40k continuing in its current state much longer without a substantial comp consideration. The rules are in a worse shape than Fantasy, which has almost died its death already sadly; let's not let the same happen to 40k.

Any rules set Matt Ward touches turns to gak. He's like the reverse-King Midas.

 puma713 wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Something definitely needs doing about these combinations. I really don't see 40k continuing in its current state much longer without a substantial comp consideration. The rules are in a worse shape than Fantasy, which has almost died its death already sadly; let's not let the same happen to 40k.

Any rules set Matt Ward touches turns to gak. He's like the reverse-King Midas.

They turn out better then Kellys and Cruddace however. Except fantasy anyways.

Nice post, yak. Totally agreed... I think many people wouldn't mind a tourney adjusting this BB rule to put a stop to the allied characters shenanigans. Most units are still really viable without it, but become insane with it... it's an easy fix.

It would not deter me from attending an event at all; it would actually incentivize me to go to it.

 RiTides wrote:
Nice post, yak. Totally agreed... I think many people wouldn't mind a tourney adjusting this BB rule to put a stop to the allied characters shenanigans. Most units are still really viable without it, but become insane with it... it's an easy fix.

It would not deter me from attending an event at all; it would actually incentivize me to go to it.

Agreed on all points.

TBH I stopped playing 6th edition because of battle brothers. I don't need to play a fluffy list, but I don't want to play one that goes against the lore either to be competitive. I play dark eldar mostly, so yeah.. F the eldar.

I am hoping the upcoming 7th/not 7th does something to fix it.

I like to have fun, but also like to feel like there is a competitive chance. With many of the "top lists" today there is not much of a chance. It doesn't matter much who is playing them, or what the dice rolls are because the law of averages with enough rerolls works out in favor of rolling more dice.

You end up with pretty much slight variants of the same things at all the top tables in a competitive environment, and this is not because the players are good, they may be. It is because those units and combinations of units are so effecient for their cost that there are not other units that can come close to competing. This is a statement of fact, and will remain so until you see someone win a major event that is not using one of these "overly efficient combinations"

Competitive players that are good will not mourn the loss of access to this combinations, nor will they refuse to attend an event because of them. Competitive players will continue to be competitive and will still place at the top tables, they just wont completely trash the non competitive players at the tournament on the way to those tables. Many of these "competitive players" existed before allies, and will continue to do so if allies are reigned in.

It is obvious that these "overly efficient models" are an issue, because everyone in this thread, and many people outside of commentary on this thread know exactly what they are without them being named. This further shows that these models/combos are completely OTT.

Jimsolo wrote:No. As a TO, I wouldn't do this. As a player, I wouldn't want it.

It's a game mechanic that people are still adjusting to, but I don't think we should just ban it. The Overwatch rule also gives some armies a distinct advantage over others, and I don't think we should ban that. The Ignores Cover USR is pretty instrumental in making certain armies 'superior' in the eyes of the community, but I don't think we should ban that either.

If a TO actually DID this, I would highly suspect he was attempting to make the tournament less challenging for one or more of his friends.

Instead of fighting change in 40k by banning all the rules from the BRB we don't like, we should try to adapt. It's a living, dynamic game, which is part of what makes it so great, and part of why it has endured for as long as it has. Let's not throw that away just because a new change makes us a little uncomfortable.

In principle the idea that 40K is an ever changing game that is constantly self-correcting itself is a romantic concept and has worked that way to a degree in the game's long lifespan, but there is now an incredibly clear indication that the company producing this game has no further interest in making a game that is balanced across it's factions in any way, shape or form.

That fact is clear because GW put out rules for a weapon (D weapons), that are far and away better than any other type of weapon out there, and in the vast majority of the cases they cost no additional points cost over other weapon types. This is the equivalent of saying that you can swap out all the bolters on your Marines for Lascannons for no additional points cost.

The choice to increase the potency of D weapons from the previous edition of Apocalypse without altering their points cost was already an incredibly questionable choice, but it was excused because Apocalypse games are known to be 'just for fun' (even though that should make no difference on whether or not point values should properly represent the abilities of a model). But once GW had the gumption to port those rules over into standard games of 40K via Escalation, they could not have held up a bigger sign saying: 'WE DON'T CARE ABOUT GAME BALANCE AT ALL.'

All indications are that GW will continue to push Lords of War into the main game. While it's fairly easy for people and tournaments to ban using Escalation to avoid ranged D weapons, there is nothing in the expansion itself that suggests GW considers it to be optional...and that is made even more clear by the new Knight rules. If people think GW 'allowed' Knights into the game as non-Lords of War because they don't have ranged 'D' weapons then I would say those people are choosing to delude themselves, plugging their ears with their fingers and yelling 'LA-LA-LA'.

The fact that GW allowed D weapons for no additional points cost into standard 40K via Escalation tells you all you need to know about how they feel about game balance. If they felt that Knights should have ranged weapons based on their fluff, then they would have given them those weapons, plain and simple. If you think they didn't give them ranged D weapons to preserve the delicate balance of the tournament meta-game, then again, all evidence points to the contrary.

GW could not care less about the tournament meta and they continue to push the game further and further away from anything remotely resembling intentional balance across the factions as a whole. And if you don't think that the next edition of the game won't have Lords of War (along with their ranged D weapons), then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

So if GW has no interest in making a balanced game, and in fact keeps pushing the game in the *opposite* direction, then how does it make sense to try to play that game competitively? Super-heavies with ranged D weapons will be 100% legal with no basis for anyone to doubt otherwise at some point. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough.

And when that happens, trying to play THAT game competitively means either trying to pack your army full of as many D-weapons as you can and/or only taking units that ignore D weapons (like flyers)...so the tiny slice of units out of each codex that will actually be competitively viable will be teeny-tiny.

Is that the tournament hobby that anyone wants to be involved in? Where tournaments are basically comprised of Revenant armies and Necron flyer hordes with Transcendent C'Tans?

So the point is...if the company making the game isn't interested in making a competitively balanced version of the game, and is actively pushing the game the opposite direction, why does it make any sense to try to play that game against their wishes AND THEN also try to say that we shouldn't change any of their rules because doing so would effectively be ruining game balance (that the company isn't trying to provide)?

GW has said time and time again that the rules for the game are there for the players to use as their own. If you like certain rules, use them, if you don't like other rules, don't use them. They have now really kicked that concept into high gear and are challenging everyone to decide what type of 40K game they are interested in playing. If the answer is: a competitively balanced one, then you're going to need to take your pruning shears to the hedge that is the current set of 40K rules and carve that game out yourselves.

I think its a great idea to stop IC's joining other units not in their book. The other good thing would be to simply limit the amount of buffs a unit can get. A) No unit can ever benefit from more than 1 blessing at a time, nor can any unit have more than 1 malediction on it at time.

There lies the rub... People say they want certain special exceptions on the first pass but then they typically bolt on some more restrictions... It's literally never ending.

Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Kavik_Whitescar wrote:
Every time I see this thread in the recent list, I just imagine a bunch of marines easting Tau and guardsmen >.>

What?

http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

clearly I am more under the weather than I think if I couldn't pick up on a reference to one of my favorite pieces of political satire ever...

 Dozer Blades wrote:
There lies the rub... People say they want certain special exceptions on the first pass but then they typically bolt on some more restrictions... It's literally never ending.

I don't think that will happen here, but we won't know until an event tries it. Particularly just trying this without a lot of other changes.

But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

The competitive players aren't staying home because you nerfed the unfun, broke-ass armies. They'll deal with it and try to find something else. TO's are concerned with getting attendees who know they have no prayer of winning going in, which is the majority.

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

Again.

The average players are who TOs need. The top players will play whatever the shifted meta tells them to play next. They will buy it, paint it (or pay for it to be painted) and play it. Those top players aren't going anywhere.

 OverwatchCNC wrote:
The average players are who TOs need. The top players will play whatever the shifted meta tells them to play next. They will buy it, paint it (or pay for it to be painted) and play it. Those top players aren't going anywhere.

And yet for the last several years, it really seems like the top players are what TOs have been catering to in a lot of events, to me. I'd really like for that to shift, and GW is pushing the envelope and almost forcing TOs to make calls on some things. It could be a good thing, in the end... or at least, work out for the best, by putting to ultimate rest the idea that GW is putting out anything like a tournament-worthy game without needing any tweaks at all for competitive play.

slaede wrote:


(Edit: And also we should eat Irish children.)

Have an exault!

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
But again, you need a TO who's willing to be a guinea pig at the possible risk of losing ticket sales and taking a personal financial hit. An Adepticon might be able to do whatever it wants based on the crazy demand it generates. But most events are in a very different category.

And it's easy for people to say "I'd attend an event with X change." But that's different than actually *doing it.* Competitive players tend to be conservative in nature...they want "good ground" for their tourney army, and may be leery of changes that introduce unseen risk factors that might hinder their chances of finishing well. That's not a criticism -- it's human nature, really.

Again.

The average players are who TOs need. The top players will play whatever the shifted meta tells them to play next. They will buy it, paint it (or pay for it to be painted) and play it. Those top players aren't going anywhere.

TOs need everyone. You say "average" and "top" players, but for many events the split is probably more accurately about locals and travelers. There are plenty of people who travel to tourneys that aren't necessarily on the top tables all the time. Travel is expensive, and even the guys who travel a lot can't hit every event. So when the traveling guy with the BB army -- "top player" or not, "top list" or not -- has a choice between an event that allows BB and an event that doesn't, guess which event has the better chance of landing his patronage? Changing the rules at one event doesn't make it a "shifted meta" to adjust to. It just creates differences to other events, which then generate purchasing decisions for those players.

You hope the locals come out and make up the better part of your attendance, but everyone wants those traveling guys too because they really like tournaments and will spend to attend. No one likes giving them reasons *not* to attend, which is all a rules change at a single tournament might create for some of them. Cripes, look at the debates here about FW, comp, prices, etc.

Sure, if you make the event friendlier for the less competitive player, maybe they'll come out and make up any difference. But then do you worry that you're targeting your event to a group of people who are probably less inclined to attend an tournament in the first place? It's potentially heavier lifting. Can it work? Maybe -- to be clear, I'm not saying that it won't. But everything I've seen in all my years playing in and helping organize events says that it's not as easy as "build it and they'll come anyway."

TL;DR All I'm saying is that most TOs would carefully consider the ramifications of doing something very different than everyone else in the circuit, especially when it might not be popular with everyone. That's why everyone's doing surveys.

The best solution here would obviously be for the rumored 7th edition to make some positive changes. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Nothing indicates that "travelers" would be less likely to attend an event tweaking that BB ruling, from what I've seen. Unless there's a poll stashed away somewhere that says otherwise.

People make the same argument for/against FW all the time. Yet several big events either allow, or don't allow, FW and both get traveling players.

So, the connection of allowing / disallowing something either gives or takes away traveling players doesn't hold water, to me... it probably gives at least as many as it takes away, with something "minor" like this.

Everybody can still run their armies- they just can't put their super-character in a unit of their allied detachment.

I probably wouldn't travel for it. Not when there are so many other events I could travel to that would cater to me. Similar to how i won't travel to unrestricted FW events.

(That's right, I brought in FW friends!)

But if the LVO is any indication, enough people have preferences the other way (wanting FW inclusion) that an event can do well either allowing or disallowing FW.

Similarly, I think an event could do well allowing or disallowing BB characters joining allied units... just my take.

Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

 Reecius wrote:
I think if you wanted to go this route, you don't need sweeping changes per se. For example, is a SM character in an IG blob really that bad? I don't think so.

It is certain, specific models that cause issues.

The Baron.
O'Vessa
Buffmander
Farseer

To a lesser extent, Coteaz.

Those are the primary troublemakers that cause the truly insane combos to pop up.

You're right about specific models causing issues, but I don't think your solution - targeting those specific units for rules changes - is appropriate. The issue, from my perspective, is the fact that the current Battle Brothers mechanic can be exploited by a handful of army combinations to create power units capable of running roughshod over an entire metagame. This is something called a design constraint; it limits the freedom designers have in creating new units (or altering existing units) during the design process, because the inclusion of something as simple as a single USR can wreak havoc on the game's ecosystem. There's no upside to design constraints: either the codex writer pays attention to them and waters down his book or he ignores them and 35% of the competitive field at every major event is running some Eldar variant.

Addressing the specific abuses of this design constraint today doesn't do anything to protect the game from new abuses tomorrow. Whether savvy players are able to cobble together some combination that's less powerful than what we see today but still potent enough to dominate the game, or a careless designer includes an abusive mechanic in an upcoming codex, addressing the issue on a case-by-case basis is a slippery slope and will inevitably draw you back to the table every time you're prepping for another event.

All of that having been said, I still hope to avoid directly modifying the rules of the game and instead help to create a solution to the stagnant metagame through asymmetrical mission design. I believe that missions are where TOs have the most authority to address these issues, because we're never going to be involved in the GW design process -- in modifying rules we'll always be chasing a bleeding man with a package of band aids.

That's just my $0.02.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MCRobot wrote:
Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

We're doing this for Escalation and Stronhold Assault: on the Friday before our Saturday-Sunday main event we're running a Total War tournament, a 3-round event that allows virtually everything. I'm excited to see the results and to gauge the fun factor of a tournament allowing Lords of War and unrestricted data slates.

MCRobot wrote:
Another option is a large tourney taking a risk and having a smaller 'guinea pig' tourney. Smaller events like combat patrols and the like are run all the time alongside the main events. It would be an excellent way to test the waters.

Adepticon's Team Tourney began as a minor sideline event, and now it virtually dominates the attendance.

Honestly I think the answer is for any event of a decent size to run multiple events that cater to different players.

Hulksmash, for example, has no interest in attending an event that excludes the battle brothers rule, and there are obviously lots of players out there that feel that way.

I, for example, have no interest in attending an event that continues to use the battle brother rules (among other things) because I find that the armies look unrecognizable from the 40k background, and I don't care for that, and I'm sure there are other players out there that feel the same way (or some that are getting there).

So events that can run a more 'pure' tournament that caters to those who want to play that and also run at the same time a more curated tournament that looks to craft the experience to those who prefer to see more themed armies seems like it accomplishes the best of both worlds and keeps encouraging all types of players to attend competitive 40K events.


I'm just interested to see how the high-level competitive players react as GW continues to cram completely broken things into the game. Almost everyone can universally agree not to include ranged D weapons into the tournaments, but what happens if/when GW makes that unabashedly part of the core game? Is there a point where people can recognize that GW is not making any attempt to provide a competitively balanced game and universally look for player-driven change (We're almost at that point, but the fact that Escalation is an expansion is kind of putting the issue off for now)?

Here's an idea for true fairness...

GT special rule: Win at all costs! All armies realize that this is the big one. The only priority is survival, and all allegiance is discarded... all armies treat all other armies as Allies of Convenience.

The OP's suggestion is a less drastic version of that, though, allowing some benefits of battle brothers, but just not the joining of characters to allied units. That'd be my preference over straight-up allies of convenience, personally.

@Yakface

I see where you're coming from on the background not matching what you're seeing but it would limit what I'm loving right now which is designing an army from the ground up and matching up the allies to make it a single cohesive force. A few examples would be Mechanicus, Blood Axe Orks, Lost & the Damned, Tau Expeditionary Forces, New Alien Races, Exodite Eldar. All of those can be built to accommodate the background visually with almost any mix of allies.

The list on paper won't look like anything from the "fluff" but the actual tabletop will.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Yakface

I see where you're coming from on the background not matching what you're seeing but it would limit what I'm loving right now which is designing an army from the ground up and matching up the allies to make it a single cohesive force. A few examples would be Mechanicus, Blood Axe Orks, Lost & the Damned, Tau Expeditionary Forces, New Alien Races, Exodite Eldar. All of those can be built to accommodate the background visually with almost any mix of allies.

The list on paper won't look like anything from the "fluff" but the actual tabletop will.

Brad, I wish everyone were like you . Sadly they aren't! No sarcasm was used in the posting of this message.

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Yakface

I see where you're coming from on the background not matching what you're seeing but it would limit what I'm loving right now which is designing an army from the ground up and matching up the allies to make it a single cohesive force. A few examples would be Mechanicus, Blood Axe Orks, Lost & the Damned, Tau Expeditionary Forces, New Alien Races, Exodite Eldar. All of those can be built to accommodate the background visually with almost any mix of allies.

The list on paper won't look like anything from the "fluff" but the actual tabletop will.

Two things:

You're one of the few people who actually goes out of their way to create armies that have a coherent tabletop theme regardless of what the rules you're using 'under the hood'. If everyone did that, maybe I wouldn't mind so much.

But more importantly, removing battle brothers from the game doesn't prohibit any of the things you describe above. Makes those combos less attractive in some cases, for sure, but they're all still possible. Like I said in one of my posts above, It's the joining of the IC battle brother to an allied unit to combo a special rule that the army can't get that's the really big issue. I also personally think it helps make the game worse allowing sub-codexes to ally with their parent codex as a way to spam even more of the same unit into the army.

Those are the two things I'd personally like to see removed to help put some theme back into the game, while still allowing allies in general to exist so that players can realize some of those fluffy army combos.


But certainly if I had to choose between no allies at all (losing those fun pairings you mention as part of that deal) or dealing with what we have now (Tau Buffmanders joining Dark Reaper units...wtf???), I'd prefer the former. And I recognize that I'm in the minority, but that's why I'm just not attending tournaments anymore (this may even be my last Adepticon this year). I just do not enjoy what the game has turned into.

What about allowing BB and ICs to join their battle brother units, but the only thing they bring with them is their leadership.

I think this will allow some cinematic pairings like a marine taking charge of IG defenders to lead them to victory, but prevents the broken combos. I'm not quite sure how the buff mander can upload his targeting data to a unit of centurions. Or how one dude's helmet powerfield is protecting a whole platoon.

 yakface wrote:


Two things:

You're one of the few people who actually goes out of their way to create armies that have a coherent tabletop theme regardless of what the rules you're using 'under the hood'. If everyone did that, maybe I wouldn't mind so much.

But more importantly, removing battle brothers from the game doesn't prohibit any of the things you describe above. Makes those combos less attractive in some cases, for sure, but they're all still possible. Like I said in one of my posts above, It's the joining of the IC battle brother to an allied unit to combo a special rule that the army can't get that's the really big issue. I also personally think it helps make the game worse allowing sub-codexes to ally with their parent codex as a way to spam even more of the same unit into the army.

Those are the two things I'd personally like to see removed to help put some theme back into the game, while still allowing allies in general to exist so that players can realize some of those fluffy army combos.


But certainly if I had to choose between no allies at all (losing those fun pairings you mention as part of that deal) or dealing with what we have now (Tau Buffmanders joining Dark Reaper units...wtf???), I'd prefer the former. And I recognize that I'm in the minority, but that's why I'm just not attending tournaments anymore (this may even be my last Adepticon this year). I just do not enjoy what the game has turned into.

I'm not sure your the minority, you may be online you are.

Any special rule prohibiting BB is just a buff to Eldar, because they still monobuild better than anyone else.

I'm not coming at this from being a tournament player, but from being a long time hobbyist and collector, but I'd like to agree with HBMC and amplify/expand on some of the stuff he has said.

I really like the idea of Allies. I appreciate it for the gamer and collector, and I appreciate it from the GW perspective. As a player, you can experiment with different armies and units. As a collector you can add things to your collection which 'fit' in your army, and as a modeler, you can do all sorts of interesting things. For a company, giving your customers encouragement to buy more things is just a great idea.

There seem to be two valid concerns. One is abusive/exploitative/broken/under-costed combinations, and the other is dire violence to the background. I agree that 'bad combos' are a problem, but I'd much rather be sure that the Alliances you see at a tournament are 'appropriate' for the 40K background. Combos will change and evolve as new rules come and go, but emphasizing the 'feel' of Warhammer should always be a goal, I think.

I'm wondering about fixes that would not ban allies or ban combinations, but also enhance the representation of the background on the tabletop.


Given that these are all 'rules-hacks', I don't see any reason to limit the idea to simple combination bans.


First, I think there needs to be a broader selection of ally conditions. To me, Battle Brothers is just that. These should be armies which have a deep level of trust, AND a strong shared set of equipment and tactics. It should be more than just being a trusted ally. For instance, Space Marines and Blood Angels might be Battle Brothers, but Space Marines and Imperial Guard would not, not because the Guard doesn't trust the marines, but because their technology and tactics and command structure are so different. This would drastically reduce the number of Battle Brothers, because there would be only a few qualifying groups. Battle Brothers could still join allied units and share their special rules and abilities. I know that would still allow some evil combinations, but it would seem to stop a lot of them outright.

Then, below Battle Brothers, but 'stronger' than Allies of Convenience, would be trusted allies. These would be armies which have a strong level of trust, but don't share in tactical doctrine, or have cross purposes, or varying goals. They would be able to be joined by allied Independent Characters, but would NOT get to use shared special rules, Warlord Traits, Chapter Tactics, etc. They could still be counted as friendly units for allied psychic powers, but would have to roll to Deny the Witch (as they aren't as trusting or acclimated to being 'helped' by friendly pyschics). Most of your current Battle Brothers would move here. For instance, while the Imperial Guard might trust and idolize the Space Marines, they are still a bit wary of being teleported by Tigurius. I would probably even consider moving Dark Angels/Space Wolves to here (they are allies, but are not the best of friends!).

Then you could use Allies of Convenience and Desperate Allies as listed.


Second, I think that tournaments should possibly consider providing their own Ally Matrix. I still think the current one is too lenient (even without the Battle Brothers/Trusted Allies hack above) and this could enhance the gaming experience and possibly reduce the abusiveness. If Eldar and Dark Eldar weren't Battle Brothers, but, at best, Allies of Convenience, then a lot of their nasty hijinks would be diminished. Providing a custom Allies Chart doesn't seem to be much more work than providing the (awesome and extensive) ForgeWorld lists from Adepticon.

Third, I would really suggest the use of asymmetrical allies. Sure, the Allies chart is easy to read as is. but it wouldn't be hard to do this at all. Your allies would very depending on what your primary contingent was, vs. your allied contingent. This idea would assume that your Primary Contingent is the 'army in charge' on the ground, and your allies are the 'odd men out'. That doesn't have to be reflected in model count or points value, but it's the background assumption of the theme of your list. If IG is your Primary, and Dark Angels are your Allies, then, even if metric craptons of Terminators show up to help out a Lord Commisar and two squads of vets, it's the Dark Angels showing up to help an Imperial Guard action. It seems like, to me, that how you feel about your allies might vary if YOU are the boots on the ground, or you are a relief force/reinforcements/fortunate happenstance. This would also allow you to represent forces that don't fully trust allies who idolize them, or forces that behave differently when they have the upper hand.

For example, while the Imperial Guard might be Battle Brothers with allied Sisters of Battle (they all share the same equipment and tactics and the Sisters are beloved of the Emperor), the Sisters might only be Trusted Allies with allied Imperial Guard (the guard are sinful and impious by comparison). Similarly, while Space Marines might welcome Allied Grey Knights with open arms (Battle Brothers), a force of Grey Knights might only regard the Space Marines as Trusted Allies (given the GK's penchant for working at their own, opaque agenda).
For another example, a huge ork army, happy to make use of some convenient mercenaries, might regard the Imperial Guard as allies of convenience ("We's not worried about that lot. We outnumber them a hunnert to one). On the other hand, an unscrupulous Imperial Guard commander might watch his Blood Axe allies very closely ("Keep an eye on the orks, Sergeant. See that they observe their place in this war.")

Other than the addition of Trusted Allies (which would be optional---since you could just downgrade a Battle Brothers listing to Allies of Convenience), all of this is just an alteration to the Allies Chart. it seems like it would be an easy thing to post for your tournament ("Here's the Allies Chart that we will be using.") and doesn't nitpick particular combos. It also could be used to quash problematic team-ups (which I am less exerted about) or to help underscore the existing 40K background (which I am more excited about).

 yakface wrote:

GW has said time and time again that the rules for the game are there for the players to use as their own. If you like certain rules, use them, if you don't like other rules, don't use them. They have now really kicked that concept into high gear and are challenging everyone to decide what type of 40K game they are interested in playing. If the answer is: a competitively balanced one, then you're going to need to take your pruning shears to the hedge that is the current set of 40K rules and carve that game out yourselves.

Also, I love this. While I wish (futilely) that GW would be a little more concerned with competitive balance, HBMC is right. They aren't. Not now, and not likely in the future.


We need to pull our heads out of the sand and realize that we don't have to pick between abandoning 40K and playing the game that GW shows in White Dwarf. Not only can (and should) tournaments take control of this, we also need to realize it as players.

Just because GW includes Apocalypse/Escalation/Giant Models/Flyer, doesn't mean that every board and every scenario has to be friendly to all of those things. Just because GW makes the Helldrake doesn't mean that you can't do a battle set in a Space Hulk, or a dense city board. Heck, Forgeworld MAKES Zone Mortalis boards, and those are off-limits to flyers, Lords of War, and a lot of walkers and vehicles.It's not attacking your local CSM player (or IG player) by playing games which don't allow them to use their fliers (or their Knights).

By assuming that every board needs to be so large and open that vehicles/walkers/Monstrous Creatures/Flyers can easily be deployed on it, we are prioritizing those models. It's not much different than making all of your games on tables with no LOS blocking terrain, which prioritizes your shooters. If people knew that some games wouldn't literally accommodate Heldrakes/Valkyries/Vendettas/Battlewagons/Wraithknights, then maybe you'd see less armies spamming them.

I understand that you need to know what to bring when you are playing in a tournament, but I'm not sure what's wrong with a tournament saying, for example, one of your tables may be set in a Space Hulk, so here's the rules for that. Another may be set in dense Cityfight Ruins. You will be allowed a 500 pt sideboard which can be swapped out between tables.

Everything goes is GW's mantra, but it isn't a rule.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Any special rule prohibiting BB is just a buff to Eldar, because they still monobuild better than anyone else.

I actually agree with this 100%, which is why I propose to allow BB to still cross streams with powers to even things out a bit. All I propose is to shut down the absurd unit combinations you get when you pile in a bunch of special rules into a unit. I have no interest in banning things because I think the other guy's army isn't sufficiently fluffy.

There is general agreement that playing against unkillable deathstars, or death stars that can remove units with no possible save, simply isn't any fun. I agree. Win or lose, it is no fun. My proposed house rule solves the problem without coming down too harshly on some of the fun army combinations. It is also one very simple rule that everyone immediately understands, and doesn't complicate things.

Yeah, you lose out on the ability to join IC's to units that don't lead to ridiculously OP combos, but the game is not significantly diminished if Marneus Calgar is not allowed to lead his plucky band of Kroot like he did that one time in that one book.

Fun is what you make of it. If you tarpit the Deathstar, bait it, or negate its effectiveness in form and still win, that's fun.

If you whine about a 2+ rerollable, and then run your entire gunline in multi-charge range and lose, you won't have fun.

Finding strategies to beat the current meta, that's fun.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Fun is what you make of it. If you tarpit the Deathstar, bait it, or negate its effectiveness in form and still win, that's fun.

If you whine about a 2+ rerollable, and then run your entire gunline in multi-charge range and lose, you won't have fun.

Finding strategies to beat the current meta, that's fun.

Tarpitting a unit that has Hit and Run plus high initiative is pretty tough.

 yakface wrote:

But certainly if I had to choose between no allies at all (losing those fun pairings you mention as part of that deal) or dealing with what we have now (Tau Buffmanders joining Dark Reaper units...wtf???), I'd prefer the former. And I recognize that I'm in the minority, but that's why I'm just not attending tournaments anymore (this may even be my last Adepticon this year). I just do not enjoy what the game has turned into.

You're definitely not alone in that sentiment or opinion. Stuff that previously was the domain of apocalypse and/or "group" games of 2v2 or 3v3 is now part and parcel of the standard 1500-2000pt game and I don't personally think it's been a change overall for the better. Other than random charge distances and wound allocation, I do like the crunchy bits of the game they added/changed but the army construction part turns me off. I've only bothered to convert my Tau out of 5 armies to a 6th edition ready status.

All BB need to be Allies of Convienance. This game is not fun to play anymore with BB abuses and those abuses outweigh any small benefit someone can find.

DarthDiggler wrote:
All BB need to be Allies of Convienance. This game is not fun to play anymore with BB abuses and those abuses outweigh any small benefit someone can find.

So...why not just ban the most abusive of them instead of a blanket ban? That's still off to me.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
All BB need to be Allies of Convienance. This game is not fun to play anymore with BB abuses and those abuses outweigh any small benefit someone can find.

So...why not just ban the most abusive of them instead of a blanket ban? That's still off to me.

They are all abusive to one degree or another and you will never get consensus on what is truly abusive. It also prevents new books from introducing new BB, which haven't been specifically banned, from running amok.

So what is abusive about CSM + Daemons? Adding in a heldrake to a daemon army? Adding a lord of change and a winged prince into a triple drake army? MAKE IT STOP!
/sarcasm

...Or.... That isn't a bad thing. I would love to run Lucius in a unit of daemonettes, or a herald in a unit of mutliators, but alas, I cannot. So... yeah, ALL BB are so OP >.>

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
So what is abusive about CSM + Daemons? Adding in a heldrake to a daemon army? Adding a lord of change and a winged prince into a triple drake army? MAKE IT STOP!
/sarcasm

...Or.... That isn't a bad thing. I would love to run Lucius in a unit of daemonettes, or a herald in a unit of mutliators, but alas, I cannot. So... yeah, ALL BB are so OP >.>

Nothing, and no one is suggesting that this sort of thing be banned.

Again, the ONLY thing being proposed (at least generally by most people) is eliminating the battle brother rules...meaning you can't join ICs into allied units and they don't count as being 'friendly' units for psychic powers and such.

This does not stop players from taking allied units that are fluffy or help to fill a tactical gap that their army lacks, which is all well and good (and generally fluffy as well). But what it does stop is those crazy stupid combinations to a large part that people take *solely* to create that rules loophole, not because they want to have CSM allying with Daemons.

And to the whole line of reasoning of: 'if you ban BBs then all of a sudden I can't have my SM commander running around in a guard unit anymore, and that's fluffy to do so.'

NOBODY is running around joining ICs to allied units to be fluffy in tournaments. The only reason people do this is to combo special rules that they can't get in their core codex.


And no, this is not a perfect solution. It still does allow certain deathstars that can be generated via a single codex left in the game, but it does go a long way towards correcting a core issue with the competitive game (that the high-level armies don't much match the game's background at all anymore).

No psychic powers buffing the others would hurt that combined army. At the LVO I ran a herald with a grimoire that was making a unit of possessed have a 3++. Not really that broken (I mean, they are POSSESSED, 28 pts for a 3+/5++, no guns). That IS a fluffy combo. I also have had that same herald give my possessed invisibility.

The whole "USR soup" that shows up in tournament play is pretty well restricted to the top 10%. Not saying I'm not competitive, or that only competitive people play those type of shenanigans, but removing even casting spells or using items on your allies (that usually fight together in fluff anyways) is kind of ridiculous anyways.

I like the OP's thoughts of just removing the fact that BB ICs can join the other allied detachment and vise-versa, and it removes a bunch of deathstar tools. What I don't like is the fact people are advocating for removal of BB period, not because it breaks my "killer" combo (which isn't that good to begin with because, you know, possessed....).

Without BB you can still have a 4+ rerollable to go seize, and all that other stupidity, but they are paying out their butts to make that combo work. The most complaints I see with BB are the USR soups, and that is easily alleviated by the OP's solution.

If we look at all the suggested changes to make the game more balance we've got the following:

1) No battle brothers
2) Space Marines can't ally with Space Marines
3) No Dataslates (including Be'lakor & Cypher)
4) No formations
5) No escalation
6) No stronghold assault
7) 2+/2++ re-rollable is always a 4+/4++ on the re-roll

This is a lot and the last one listed didn't seem to really hurt Jetseer Council in Vegas. I am okay with the last three but still it's a lot.

 Dozer Blades wrote:
If we look at all the suggested changes to make the game more balance we've got the following:

1) No battle brothers
2) Space Marines can't ally with Space Marines
3) No Dataslates (including Be'lakor & Cypher)
4) No formations
5) No escalation
6) No stronghold assault
7) 2+/2++ re-rollable is always a 4+/4++ on the re-roll

This is a lot and the last one listed didn't seem to really hurt Jetseer Council in Vegas. I am okay with the last three but still it's a lot.

So... basically 4th and 5th edition? That isn't a dig on it but the sentiment of people unhappy with 6e is pretty obvious. I would have included 3rd edition as well but chapter approved in WD was basically a print version of dataslates and caused just as much problems and arguments as the electronic version does. It went from "no permission" to "can't use without approval" in WD and most every tourney at that time pretty much excluded all of them. Expanding the game as an option like with cityfight and planetstrike is perfectly fine in my book by I don't want every single 40k game potentially turning into a mini-apoc battle.

 yakface wrote:

 Dude_I_Suck wrote:
So what is abusive about CSM + Daemons? Adding in a heldrake to a daemon army? Adding a lord of change and a winged prince into a triple drake army? MAKE IT STOP!
/sarcasm

...Or.... That isn't a bad thing. I would love to run Lucius in a unit of daemonettes, or a herald in a unit of mutliators, but alas, I cannot. So... yeah, ALL BB are so OP >.>

Nothing, and no one is suggesting that this sort of thing be banned.

Again, the ONLY thing being proposed (at least generally by most people) is eliminating the battle brother rules...meaning you can't join ICs into allied units and they don't count as being 'friendly' units for psychic powers and such.

This does not stop players from taking allied units that are fluffy or help to fill a tactical gap that their army lacks, which is all well and good (and generally fluffy as well). But what it does stop is those crazy stupid combinations to a large part that people take *solely* to create that rules loophole, not because they want to have CSM allying with Daemons.

When I'm trying to cast my Slaaneshi' daemons psyker abilities on my CSM troops or vice versa, it pretty much will hurt my army, and wouldn't be fluffy either, still fun to cast Hysterical Frenzy on a Daemonette group, get +1A and start tearing troops apart.

1) No battle brothers
2) Space Marines can't ally with Space Marines
3) No Dataslates (including Be'lakor & Cypher)
4) No formations
5) No escalation
6) No stronghold assault
7) 2+/2++ re-rollable is always a 4+/4++ on the re-roll

..So 4th and 5th edition again in terms of outside rules? I'd miss my dataslates, my formations and my BB.

I find it laughable that the complaint to not allow BB is that unoptimized combos can't be used. Then why the hell do you use them in the first place?

To you chaos guys complaining about losing your unoptimized combo. If it is so unoptimized, then it wouldn't matter if you could do it or not right? I mean it really has little bearing on whether you win or lose since it is so unoptimized.

Sorry, but for the greater good, you lose out. Suck it up and move on.

DarthDiggler wrote:
I find it laughable that the complaint to not allow BB is that unoptimized combos can't be used. Then why the hell do you use them in the first place?

To you chaos guys complaining about losing your unoptimized combo. If it is so unoptimized, then it wouldn't matter if you could do it or not right? I mean it really has little bearing on whether you win or lose since it is so unoptimized.

Sorry, but for the greater good, you lose out. Suck it up and move on.

By that logic, why not just ban Tau and Eldar then? They are the main reasons this is a concern to begin with, and for the greater good of the game it'd fix most of the major issues outright at this point, because wave serpent spam isn't going to go away just because they lost some BB with tau, nor buffmanders with riptides.

Without BB: Eldar dominate.
With BB: Eldar dominate, but Tau and SM can compete.

Which is worse?

I still think disallowing the BB character joining an allied unit is better than disallowing BB entirely. But, either is better than nothing. Dozer Blades, Seer Council IS a lot weaker without the Baron's hit-and-run, right?

DarthDiggler wrote:
I find it laughable that the complaint to not allow BB is that unoptimized combos can't be used. Then why the hell do you use them in the first place?

To you chaos guys complaining about losing your unoptimized combo. If it is so unoptimized, then it wouldn't matter if you could do it or not right? I mean it really has little bearing on whether you win or lose since it is so unoptimized.

Sorry, but for the greater good, you lose out. Suck it up and move on.

That would be because we could, you know, have fun with out optimized lists. I could, you know, take FMC spam daemons/csm, but I don't find that fun. I prefer to go up against optimized lists (4+ wave serpents or quadtides, or whatever) because I like to see what will happen. Some people could just be going to tournaments to play against people who they don't all the time, or just have fun playing. My "unoptimized" lists end up having a positive W/L ratio anyways, and I find that to be a victory in and of itself when going to events where the majority of the opponents are "optimized."

There is no need to be rude and berate others because they don't have the same mindset as you. Different people have different ideas of "fun" in tournament play. Some think fun is just winning, other such as myself, have fun, you know playing the game, because, well, it's A GAME.

And wouldn't it be more fun to not face Baron + Seer Council all the time, or Farseer + uber unit X? They could still be in the same army, but you'd see it so much less if they couldn't join allied units. Would immediately make lists closer to the background, and take out almost all the really absurd combos plaguing the game atm.

 Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Fun is what you make of it. If you tarpit the Deathstar, bait it, or negate its effectiveness in form and still win, that's fun.

If you whine about a 2+ rerollable, and then run your entire gunline in multi-charge range and lose, you won't have fun.

Finding strategies to beat the current meta, that's fun.

Well said.

You can't tarpit the death star if the Baron is allowed to join it

 yakface wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

I see where you're coming from on the background not matching what you're seeing but it would limit what I'm loving right now which is designing an army from the ground up and matching up the allies to make it a single cohesive force. A few examples would be Mechanicus, Blood Axe Orks, Lost & the Damned, Tau Expeditionary Forces, New Alien Races, Exodite Eldar. All of those can be built to accommodate the background visually with almost any mix of allies.
The list on paper won't look like anything from the "fluff" but the actual tabletop will.

You're one of the few people who actually goes out of their way to create armies that have a coherent tabletop theme regardless of what the rules you're using 'under the hood'. If everyone did that, maybe I wouldn't mind so much.

When I was looking into 40k a few years ago I couldn't decide between Tau, Eldar, Dark Eldar, Orks or Necrons. Then I saw the Allies matrix and realized I didn't HAVE TO pick only one ; that I could collect what I wanted and work out armies with better flexibility.

When I play, the story takes precedence, so I don't usually join my IC to Allied units, even if they're Battle Brothers. If I don't have a good reason for putting on the table, I don't play it.

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

This is wisdom.

 RiTides wrote:
You can't tarpit the death star if the Baron is allowed to join it

Nemesor Zandrekh can remove Hit and Run.

Not everyone plays Necrons though so I don't think that'll effectively resolve the issue with JSC. It doesn't help the other armies.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I find it laughable that the complaint to not allow BB is that unoptimized combos can't be used. Then why the hell do you use them in the first place?

To you chaos guys complaining about losing your unoptimized combo. If it is so unoptimized, then it wouldn't matter if you could do it or not right? I mean it really has little bearing on whether you win or lose since it is so unoptimized.

Sorry, but for the greater good, you lose out. Suck it up and move on.

By that logic, why not just ban Tau and Eldar then? They are the main reasons this is a concern to begin with, and for the greater good of the game it'd fix most of the major issues outright at this point, because wave serpent spam isn't going to go away just because they lost some BB with tau, nor buffmanders with riptides.

That is not logic. That is you stating an unreasonable position. How can you equate getting rid of BB with banning whole book. That's asinine.

Without BB the meta changes. You could not have lots of the power combos that exist. This would allow other armies, ones that hurt Serpent Spam, more reliable in a tourney setting.

Relapse wrote:

Coldsteel wrote:
Kevin, I'm still in favor of ending Battle Brothers all together. I think it's enough of an advantage to add units from a second codex to cover one's weaknesses without allowing those chosen units to affect the USRs of the main force.

Bright Lights,
Coldsteel

This is wisdom.

No, this is a hit to every army except Eldar and the books that can't have BB anyway. CSM and Daemons were designed to run together as battle brothers. Is the warp storm table going to hit my CSM allies now? Nor is it so terrible that a Dark Angel librarian might be able to cast Prescience on that Thunderfire Cannon. The only abusive things going on involve IC's joining units from other armies and piling in half a dozen special rules into one impossible to deal with unit.

This is the same thing as all the GT's that have banned all dataslates because people think one of them is overpowered. Let's be more measured about this.

DarthDiggler wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I find it laughable that the complaint to not allow BB is that unoptimized combos can't be used. Then why the hell do you use them in the first place?

To you chaos guys complaining about losing your unoptimized combo. If it is so unoptimized, then it wouldn't matter if you could do it or not right? I mean it really has little bearing on whether you win or lose since it is so unoptimized.

Sorry, but for the greater good, you lose out. Suck it up and move on.

By that logic, why not just ban Tau and Eldar then? They are the main reasons this is a concern to begin with, and for the greater good of the game it'd fix most of the major issues outright at this point, because wave serpent spam isn't going to go away just because they lost some BB with tau, nor buffmanders with riptides.

That is not logic. That is you stating an unreasonable position. How can you equate getting rid of BB with banning whole book. That's asinine.

Without BB the meta changes. You could not have lots of the power combos that exist. This would allow other armies, ones that hurt Serpent Spam, more reliable in a tourney setting.

What exactly are the power combo's without Tau and Eldar again?

We had someone mention Seer Council + Baron, and then Farseer + anything.

 RiTides wrote:
I still think disallowing the BB character joining an allied unit is better than disallowing BB entirely. But, either is better than nothing. Dozer Blades, Seer Council IS a lot weaker without the Baron's hit-and-run, right?

Meh... in that case, they'll just use Irilyth Phoenix Lord.

Yes, that Forgeworld character would also do the trick, seemingly... but at least they'd have to pay a heck of a lot more points to get the ability to hit and run.

 RiTides wrote:
Yes, that Forgeworld character would also do the trick, seemingly... but at least they'd have to pay a heck of a lot more points to get the ability to hit and run.

That's true and a fair point.

You can already add the swooping hawk Pheonix lord for hit and run I believe, but you need to give up a Farseer in both cases. Furthermore, the baron gets re-roll to hit and run I believe, making it almost an auto pass, gives you a +1 to the roll to pick who goes firs, a 2++ save etc. It is a big downgrade to not have the battle brothers, as for the arguments that it hurts all non eldar I disagree...daemons are not effected much,a s they already have minimal bb interaction, nids would get a buff.

Meh... Irylith is sitll awesome... I'm trying to convince my bro to try it out.

If nothing else, for this rule:
SHADOW OF DEATH - - opponents roll 3 dice for leadership/moral tests, taking the two highest.

Who needs Terrify!

This is a pretty funny situation.
Obviously the real problem is with specific codexes. Specific units within them, or just particular combinations. The BEST solution then is to take a scalpel to those units. But no-one would accept that solution as it appears unfair... so we need to find the next-best solution that affects everyone - even when this hurts some more than others and hurts some for no reason at all.

 RiTides wrote:
Yes, that Forgeworld character would also do the trick, seemingly... but at least they'd have to pay a heck of a lot more points to get the ability to hit and run.

Assuming that FW character is an HQ, it would take the place of a Farseer, and wreck the deathstar since only three shots at Fortune is not good enough.

Besides Eldar and Tau, Space Marines can do Kor'sarro, a White Scars Chapter Master, a Rune Priest and a Wolf Lord with the EW saga, all joined to a command squad. It has hit and run, three 2+ armor saves, two Eternal warriors, grav weapons, pseudo skilled rider, etc... All on bikes.

slaede wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Yes, that Forgeworld character would also do the trick, seemingly... but at least they'd have to pay a heck of a lot more points to get the ability to hit and run.

Assuming that FW character is an HQ, it would take the place of a Farseer, and wreck the deathstar since only three shots at Fortune is not good enough.

Interestingly enough, my brother brought a council + beast squad with two farseers/Baron to LVO. Out of 5 games, I believe he only got fortune once.

*shrugs*

Besides Eldar and Tau, Space Marines can do Kor'sarro, a White Scars Chapter Master, a Rune Priest and a Wolf Lord with the EW saga, all joined to a command squad. It has hit and run, three 2+ armor saves, two Eternal warriors, grav weapons, pseudo skilled rider, etc... All on bikes.

What's that? Like 800 points? o.O

2+ armor saves is one thing, and eternal warrior just prevents dying in a hit. 2++ rerollable saves on a massive unit where to a man everyone has fleshbane weapons is not okay.

The nastier thing to do with that bike command squad, btw, is to run Sammael who actually does confer skilled rider which stacks with the White Scars chapter tactic and gives you a 3+ cover just for moving in your movement phase, 2+ for turbo-boosting.

The difference is you can deal with it, with most armies, without having to divert your entire force into something that can take it on. Tau especially just snigger at bikes, because they have a plethora of nasty giant super guns and essentially have ignores cover on every unit provided you haven't whittled down their markerlight support. You shoot it with enough even S3 shots, you can take it out. Not so much with the Eldar jetbike council of doom.

 SRSFACE wrote:
2+ armor saves is one thing, and eternal warrior just prevents dying in a hit. 2++ rerollable saves on a massive unit where to a man everyone has fleshbane weapons is not okay.

The nastier thing to do with that bike command squad, btw, is to run Sammael who actually does confer skilled rider which stacks with the White Scars chapter tactic and gives you a 3+ cover just for moving in your movement phase, 2+ for turbo-boosting.

The difference is you can deal with it, with most armies, without having to divert your entire force into something that can take it on. Tau especially just snigger at bikes, because they have a plethora of nasty giant super guns and essentially have ignores cover on every unit provided you haven't whittled down their markerlight support. You shoot it with enough even S3 shots, you can take it out. Not so much with the Eldar jetbike council of doom.

It's stronger than you think, but we'll see how the TOF invitational plays out. That particular deathstar is being run by four dudes.