Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/11 19:16:45


Post by: luke1705


I've been reading about the idea of restricting or banning the big big guys at 2k tournament events. I think everyone can probably agree that not EVERY unit that you can take within the points restrictions SHOULD be able to be taken (like a Warhound in a 1500 event would just be silly) but there are also might be some units that toe the line of going over the power level restriction of 31+ proposed for the BAO that I think are probably not broken in a 2000 point event.

My initial thought was restricting models that have 30 or more wounds, since those are the truly big boys. But let's open it up to discussion on literally any model and see if we can't come up with some generally accepted list of models that absolutely should NOT be allowed in a 2k event, and some models that we think probably should be allowed in a 2k event.

So here is a list of all models with 31 or more power levels, as well as where you can find the rules:

Spoiler:


Hellhammer (Imperial 2 Index)
Stompa (Xenos 2 Index)
Khorne Lord of Skulls (Chaos Index)
Imperial Fortress Walls (Astra Militarum Imperial Armor)
Knight Porphyrion (Astram Militarum Imperial Armor, Chaos Imperial Armor)
Warhound Scout Titan (Astra Militarum Imperial Armor, Chaos Imperial Armor)
Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne (Chaos Imperial Armor)
Fellblade (Astartes & Chaos Imperial Armor)
Falchion (Astartes & Chaos Imperial Armor)
Mastodon (Astartes & Chaos Imperial Armor)
Thunderhawk Gunship (Astartes & Chaos Imperial Armor)
Stormbird Gunship (Astartes & Chaos Imperial Armor)
An'ggrath the Unbound (Chaos Imperial Armor)
Big Bird (aet'pouepoau'keres) (Chaos Imperial Armor)
Castellum Stronghold (Astartes Imperial Armor)
Tomb Citadel (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Harridan (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Hierophant (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Kustom Stompa (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Tau'nar Supremacy Armour (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Scorpion (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Vampire Raider (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Vampire Hunter (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Skathach Wraithknight (Xenos Imperial Armor)
Revenant Titan (Xenos Imperial Armor)


Pretty sure that's all of them, but someone let me know if I missed any



TBH, there's not much on that list (IMO) that should be allowed in a 2k event. Most of the stuff that would be crazy silly to bring and just wouldn't be super fun for the average person to play against. I think the ones that some events might consider allowing are as follows:

Spoiler:


Hellhammer
Stompa
Lord of Skulls
Brass Scorpion
Fellblade
Falchion
An'ggrath
Big Bird
Harridan
Scorpion
Skathach Wraithknight



What do you guys think? Should some of these models be allowed? All? None?

Feel free to discuss individual models on a case-by-case basis, or talk about how good or bad a unit is if you're familiar with it, as I'm sure some people won't be familiar with any given model. You're welcome to discuss stats and such, but please no posting complete rules for any model.

If you've made it this far, maybe you'd like to express your opinion! Here's a link to a survey that I threw together about each model. Vote and I'll totally send a copy of the responses to Reece for him to consider!

https://goo.gl/forms/9ZMGyRcst2BAWR253


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/11 19:57:32


Post by: Breng77


I would go with none. I think allowing any opens debate about all units. For instance Big Bird is stupid powerful.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/11 22:34:53


Post by: luke1705


I don't disagree with you, but for example the stompa isn't even that good, and the Harridan is an active handicap. If someone wanted to bring those two units, I think almost no one would take issue with that.

But I get where you're coming from - the standpoint of if you open the can of worms, where do you draw the line?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/11 23:26:25


Post by: NivlacSupreme


If I remember correctly you used to be able to bring two warhounds to a 1500 game.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/11 23:31:16


Post by: luke1705


 NivlacSupreme wrote:
If I remember correctly you used to be able to bring two warhounds to a 1500 game.


Game, yes. Tournament? Didn't hear about many that would have allowed that.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 07:17:36


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


10 man Paladin squad is 32 Pow.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 11:47:09


Post by: gungo


Half the stuff on your list you want is easily fixed by just increasing the power level limit to 33+. A lot of things like hellhammer and wraithknight and scorpion, harridan are 31-32.
Is there anything in that range that's grossly overpowered? The greater brass scorpion is 32, but even though it's strong and fast I think it's salvageable.

Also the stompa will never be included in an approved power level limit because it's 49 power level and grossly over costed and needs to be either buffed or severely reduced in point cost.
But other then that I think the limit should be 33+


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 12:17:17


Post by: Kriswall


How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.



Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 12:46:08


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.

this straw man needs to go. It's brought up every edition about every broken unit. There has been 2 major tournaments both won by flyer spam (aka stormraven)because all of the major tournaments decided to use the crap brb missions (which haven't changed from 7th except for the relic which they somehow made worse) instead of the tournament missions they've been using the last decade. And without layered missions flyers just go around the board mostly ignoring objectives and tableing oppponents, racking up Kill points which are awful for tournament victory point purposes. These tournaments NEVER should have played by the book missions, but for some god awful reason wanted to appease the uninformed masses and play by the book.

It is not hard to play or look at battle reports and see that certain units are flat out broken, undercosted or unbalanced. There is a reason plasma scion spam is prevalent because mathematically and playwise it's the best weapon in most circumstances. We don't need a tournament to hold our hand and tell us it's undercosted.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 12:46:32


Post by: luke1705


I think the issue is less of a game balance one and more of an anti-deathstar one. These types of units are the only true "deathstars" left in the game. Whether people win or lose against some of these types of units, the feeling of helplessness isn't something that a lot of people enjoy.

That being said, the same feeling occurs when you're against 200 brimstone horrors and the changeling, but that's just me. I welcome the tactical challenge in a tournament setting.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 12:58:50


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.

this straw man needs to go. It's brought up every edition about every broken unit. There has been 2 major tournaments both won by flyer spam (aka stormraven)because all of the major tournaments decided to use the crap brb missions (which haven't changed from 7th except for the relic which they somehow made worse) instead of the tournament missions they've been using the last decade. And without layered missions flyers just go around the board mostly ignoring objectives and tableing oppponents, racking up Kill points which are awful for tournament victory point purposes. These tournaments NEVER should have played by the book missions, but for some god awful reason wanted to appease the uninformed masses and play by the book.

It is not hard to play or look at battle reports and see that certain units are flat out broken, undercosted or unbalanced. There is a reason plasma scion spam is prevalent because mathematically and playwise it's the best weapon in most circumstances. We don't need a tournament to hold our hand and tell us it's undercosted.


Understood. Power Rating 31+ units have not been winning tournaments. You're attempting to fix something that has not yet presented as a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 luke1705 wrote:
I think the issue is less of a game balance one and more of an anti-deathstar one. These types of units are the only true "deathstars" left in the game. Whether people win or lose against some of these types of units, the feeling of helplessness isn't something that a lot of people enjoy.

That being said, the same feeling occurs when you're against 200 brimstone horrors and the changeling, but that's just me. I welcome the tactical challenge in a tournament setting.


I get the anti-deathstar comment. I also feel that if the meta shakes out that these giants are on top, that other lists will naturally change to be able to deal with giants. We'll see more high damage weapons, etc. Why can't we just wait and see what happens with the meta?

I constantly see people panic about Warhound Titans potentially crushing entire tournaments and yet I've never seen a Warhound Titan crush a tournament where it was allowed to participate.

Again... is this a real issue?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 13:34:35


Post by: MasterSlowPoke


The issue isn't what's winning tournaments, as good players win tournaments over lists everything It's more what's making the upper third of the tables unfun to play.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 13:54:33


Post by: Kriswall


 MasterSlowPoke wrote:
The issue isn't what's winning tournaments, as good players win tournaments over lists everything It's more what's making the upper third of the tables unfun to play.


Ok... so... this isn't a balance issue? It's a fun issue? Why wouldn't players just pick a different game that is more fun? Serious question. You're basically saying that Power Rating 31+ units aren't a balance issue and have no real impact on the outcome of a tournament. You're really saying that you want to make the game less fun for players who like taking PR 31+ units so that the game can be more fun for people who don't like when others take PR 31+ units. How is that not just shuffling the lack of fun from one group to another?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 14:32:18


Post by: mhelm01


gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.

this straw man needs to go. It's brought up every edition about every broken unit. There has been 2 major tournaments both won by flyer spam (aka stormraven)because all of the major tournaments decided to use the crap brb missions (which haven't changed from 7th except for the relic which they somehow made worse) instead of the tournament missions they've been using the last decade. And without layered missions flyers just go around the board mostly ignoring objectives and tableing oppponents, racking up Kill points which are awful for tournament victory point purposes. These tournaments NEVER should have played by the book missions, but for some god awful reason wanted to appease the uninformed masses and play by the book.

It is not hard to play or look at battle reports and see that certain units are flat out broken, undercosted or unbalanced. There is a reason plasma scion spam is prevalent because mathematically and playwise it's the best weapon in most circumstances. We don't need a tournament to hold our hand and tell us it's undercosted.


What two MAJOR tournaments have been won by flyer spam?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:The issue isn't what's winning tournaments, as good players win tournaments over lists everything It's more what's making the upper third of the tables unfun to play.


This is simply not true. Good players with good lists win tournaments.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 15:04:03


Post by: gungo


Since this is an ITC change it's based on the last two MAJOR itc events. http://bloodofkittens.com/itc-major-gt-event-tracker-2017-season/
Feel free to look at the lists here: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.

this straw man needs to go. It's brought up every edition about every broken unit. There has been 2 major tournaments both won by flyer spam (aka stormraven)because all of the major tournaments decided to use the crap brb missions (which haven't changed from 7th except for the relic which they somehow made worse) instead of the tournament missions they've been using the last decade. And without layered missions flyers just go around the board mostly ignoring objectives and tableing oppponents, racking up Kill points which are awful for tournament victory point purposes. These tournaments NEVER should have played by the book missions, but for some god awful reason wanted to appease the uninformed masses and play by the book.

It is not hard to play or look at battle reports and see that certain units are flat out broken, undercosted or unbalanced. There is a reason plasma scion spam is prevalent because mathematically and playwise it's the best weapon in most circumstances. We don't need a tournament to hold our hand and tell us it's undercosted.


Understood. Power Rating 31+ units have not been winning tournaments. You're attempting to fix something that has not yet presented as a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 luke1705 wrote:
I think the issue is less of a game balance one and more of an anti-deathstar one. These types of units are the only true "deathstars" left in the game. Whether people win or lose against some of these types of units, the feeling of helplessness isn't something that a lot of people enjoy.

That being said, the same feeling occurs when you're against 200 brimstone horrors and the changeling, but that's just me. I welcome the tactical challenge in a tournament setting.


I get the anti-deathstar comment. I also feel that if the meta shakes out that these giants are on top, that other lists will naturally change to be able to deal with giants. We'll see more high damage weapons, etc. Why can't we just wait and see what happens with the meta?

I constantly see people panic about Warhound Titans potentially crushing entire tournaments and yet I've never seen a Warhound Titan crush a tournament where it was allowed to participate.

Again... is this a real issue?

No the majority of 32+ pl units are a problem however lack of layered balanced missions are a bigger problem. Stop trying to straw man out of the point!! Let it play is an awful way to balance this game. It always has been and always will be regardless of how many times people bring it up when they want to play with their broken toys. It didn't work last year when people wanted to play with 4+ wraithknights in the itc. And when a tournament like the ATC allowed it. They completely dominated the entire event!!!


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 15:19:40


Post by: mhelm01


gungo wrote:
Since this is an ITC change it's based on the last two MAJOR itc events. http://bloodofkittens.com/itc-major-gt-event-tracker-2017-season/


I understand that. There has only been one MAJOR tournament since 8th dropped. In the UK. The next major will be BAO.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 15:21:49


Post by: gungo


mhelm01 wrote:
gungo wrote:
Since this is an ITC change it's based on the last two MAJOR itc events. http://bloodofkittens.com/itc-major-gt-event-tracker-2017-season/


I understand that. There has only been one MAJOR tournament since 8th dropped. In the UK. The next major will be BAO.

In the U.K......there was 1 flyer spam list winner... in the USA there was another
http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/
Boise list is there....


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 16:09:01


Post by: Silentz


Just to add the UK Caledonian GT didn't use pure book missions, it uses a blended system where you simultaneously play Eternal War, Maelstrom and Kill Points.

Flyer spam didn't win on objectives, it won by sheer dakka dakka, I believe.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 17:07:23


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
Since this is an ITC change it's based on the last two MAJOR itc events. http://bloodofkittens.com/itc-major-gt-event-tracker-2017-season/
Feel free to look at the lists here: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
How many tournaments have armies with Power Rating 31+ units been winning? Is this an actual issue... or an imagined one? I'm guessing it's an imagined one. Generally speaking, it seems like a good idea to only put house rules in place to fix actual problems.

this straw man needs to go. It's brought up every edition about every broken unit. There has been 2 major tournaments both won by flyer spam (aka stormraven)because all of the major tournaments decided to use the crap brb missions (which haven't changed from 7th except for the relic which they somehow made worse) instead of the tournament missions they've been using the last decade. And without layered missions flyers just go around the board mostly ignoring objectives and tableing oppponents, racking up Kill points which are awful for tournament victory point purposes. These tournaments NEVER should have played by the book missions, but for some god awful reason wanted to appease the uninformed masses and play by the book.

It is not hard to play or look at battle reports and see that certain units are flat out broken, undercosted or unbalanced. There is a reason plasma scion spam is prevalent because mathematically and playwise it's the best weapon in most circumstances. We don't need a tournament to hold our hand and tell us it's undercosted.


Understood. Power Rating 31+ units have not been winning tournaments. You're attempting to fix something that has not yet presented as a problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 luke1705 wrote:
I think the issue is less of a game balance one and more of an anti-deathstar one. These types of units are the only true "deathstars" left in the game. Whether people win or lose against some of these types of units, the feeling of helplessness isn't something that a lot of people enjoy.

That being said, the same feeling occurs when you're against 200 brimstone horrors and the changeling, but that's just me. I welcome the tactical challenge in a tournament setting.


I get the anti-deathstar comment. I also feel that if the meta shakes out that these giants are on top, that other lists will naturally change to be able to deal with giants. We'll see more high damage weapons, etc. Why can't we just wait and see what happens with the meta?

I constantly see people panic about Warhound Titans potentially crushing entire tournaments and yet I've never seen a Warhound Titan crush a tournament where it was allowed to participate.

Again... is this a real issue?

No the majority of 32+ pl units are a problem however lack of layered balanced missions are a bigger problem. Stop trying to straw man out of the point!! Let it play is an awful way to balance this game. It always has been and always will be regardless of how many times people bring it up when they want to play with their broken toys. It didn't work last year when people wanted to play with 4+ wraithknights in the itc. And when a tournament like the ATC allowed it. They completely dominated the entire event!!!


Last year was an entirely different edition of the game... so not relevant to the current discussion. The units have almost universally been changed and re-balanced. How many 2k games have you played against Warhound Titans? How many 2k games have you personally witnessed being played against Warhound Titans? How many of the major 8th edition tournaments (all 1-2 of them) have been won by Warhound Titans? Yeah... so maybe Warhound Titans aren't an auto-take, auto-win unit that needs to be nerfed? Maybe we wait for enough events to occur to know what 8th's issues are? Preemptively nerfing things that haven't demonstrated the need for a nerf feels a bit whiny on the part of the players calling for the nerf.

It's not a strawman argument to point out that you have yet to demonstrate that the units you say are problems are actually problems. Instead, it sounds like you only like part of the game. That's cool. I'm a Necron player. My buddy plays Tau. My other buddy plays Black Templars. We don't really enjoy playing against armies with psychic powers. I think maybe we should just preemptively ban psychic powers. After all, psychic powers negatively impact the fun level of a portion of the player base. This is what the argument sounds like. Jetbikes move too fast. That's not fun. Get rid of it. Tau shoot too much. Get rid of them. Orks choke the battlefield with models. Get rid of them. Take this to the ludicrous extreme and you end up with Marines on foot fighting Marines on foot in every game... you know... 30k. Maybe people who don't enjoy the variety 40k has to offer should stick to 30k?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 17:18:11


Post by: gungo


You keep missing the point. I keep bringing up examples. But you keep missing it.
Let it play!!! We don't know unless we have 6+ months of tournament data is an awful way to balance the game. It has NEVER worked. And As you can easily see from tournament data already or the hundreds of battle reports... this edition is NOT balanced. Oh but it's a NEW unbalanced and broken edition doesn't really make a difference. People already know which units are the most powerful and broken. The idea is to fix those extremely broken units. Either change the missions, ban the units, or change the rules for those units is the way to go. GW claims they will eventually do it themselves. We will have to wait and see how quickly this happens for now limiting the playing field by removing titan equivilant units is a good way to limit the issues considering it appears fw put very little thought into pricing most of those units with every single weapon option costing the same 0 points.

You can argue that a flat 32+ PL ban isn't quite fair to every unit however arguing that certain units are not broken is flat out wrong.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 17:33:59


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
You keep missing the point. I keep bringing up examples. But you keep missing it.
Let it play!!! We don't know unless we have 6+ months of tournament data is an awful way to balance the game. It has NEVER worked. And As you can easily see from tournament data already or the hundreds of battle reports... this edition is NOT balanced. Oh but it's a NEW unbalanced and broken edition doesn't really make a difference. People already know which units are the most powerful and broken. The idea is to fix those extremely broken units. Either change the missions, ban the units, or change the rules for those units is the way to go. GW claims they will eventually do it themselves. We will have to wait and see how quickly this happens for now limiting the playing field by removing titan equivilant units is a good way to limit the issues considering it appears fw put very little thought into pricing most of those units with every single weapon option costing the same 0 points.

You can argue that a flat 32+ PL ban isn't quite fair to every unit however arguing that certain units are not broken is flat out wrong.


And you're missing my point. Why preemptively ban X, Y and Z when it might actually be A, B and C that are causing problem? My point is that while you may be all powerful and all knowing, the rest of us don't know exactly which units are issues or why. I'd rather allow the meta to mature past the 2 event mark and see what happens.

I think 'wait and see before making an informed decision' is far better than 'arbitrarily decide' when it comes to your reason for making balance changes.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 17:48:50


Post by: gungo


You do realize majors and GT are not the only events?
BCP makes it easier then ever to see every tournament and list. It's NOT 2 events. It's 2 majors and almost a hundred other participating events.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 17:55:27


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
You do realize majors and GT are not the only events?
BCP makes it easier then ever to see every tournament and list. It's NOT 2 events. It's 2 majors and almost a hundred other participating events.


I'm not really interested in small events. They don't give you the same information that a major does. Majors and GTs are what we should care about.

My buddy who plays Orks has won 3 out of the last 4 events at my local shop. Granted, those events were small and the rest of us never take anything that can deal with hordes, but I think the clear answer is that Orks are overpowered and should be nerfed across the board. After all, they're winning 75% of the time and the rest of us don't enjoy the top table games.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 18:15:00


Post by: MVBrandt


In terms of raw data, majors like LVO, NOVA, AdeptiCon, etc. will provide you with more outcomes from a table-to-table perspective than smaller events, but I don't think it takes months to figure out where balance pain points lie.

GW's just much more active than before at soliciting, digging for, and acting on community feedback, so I would give them some time for that before too many sweeping modifications or restrictions to what is or isn't allowed in events.

But if you're trying to talk about volume, NOVA should have about 800 games played in just the GT this year. A 16-person local RTT will have 24 games played. LVO at 512 players and 9 rounds could have as many as 1,500-2,000 games played depending on drops and such. This isn't counting all the side events and what-not, but you get a lot more people bringing real lists they've been willing to invest in and getting in literally thousands of game results. So ... one should be interested in all events, but the majors are certainly a bit more valuable from a data gathering perspective.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 18:41:22


Post by: Kriswall


MVBrandt wrote:
In terms of raw data, majors like LVO, NOVA, AdeptiCon, etc. will provide you with more outcomes from a table-to-table perspective than smaller events, but I don't think it takes months to figure out where balance pain points lie.

GW's just much more active than before at soliciting, digging for, and acting on community feedback, so I would give them some time for that before too many sweeping modifications or restrictions to what is or isn't allowed in events.

But if you're trying to talk about volume, NOVA should have about 800 games played in just the GT this year. A 16-person local RTT will have 24 games played. LVO at 512 players and 9 rounds could have as many as 1,500-2,000 games played depending on drops and such. This isn't counting all the side events and what-not, but you get a lot more people bringing real lists they've been willing to invest in and getting in literally thousands of game results. So ... one should be interested in all events, but the majors are certainly a bit more valuable from a data gathering perspective.


Yeah. You also have the fact that players at events like NOVA or LVO tend to take the competitive games a little more seriously than everyone might at a local store event. Small store events can easily be skewed by players who don't care about winning or others who care A LOT about winning. In other words, the NOVA/LVO meta is much more representative of the current state of the game than the meta at your local FLGS. It makes more sense to make balance decisions off NOVA/LVO results than it does to make decisions off a similar number of small store games.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 20:57:17


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
You do realize majors and GT are not the only events?
BCP makes it easier then ever to see every tournament and list. It's NOT 2 events. It's 2 majors and almost a hundred other participating events.


I'm not really interested in small events. They don't give you the same information that a major does. Majors and GTs are what we should care about.

My buddy who plays Orks has won 3 out of the last 4 events at my local shop. Granted, those events were small and the rest of us never take anything that can deal with hordes, but I think the clear answer is that Orks are overpowered and should be nerfed across the board. After all, they're winning 75% of the time and the rest of us don't enjoy the top table games.

Where do you think people who play these events go to test out these lists?
Do you honestly think players on the north east are flying out to Boise to test out thier list for nova?
No they play at smaller events like connecticon or battle for salvation.
Your position is nieve at best. Events with 20-25 people are just as informative in large data segments as GTs that are 75+attendees.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 21:37:26


Post by: djones520


So... Khorne Lord of Skulls. Tournament this last weekend, a guy had one. Never made it past turn 1. Player ended up dead last.

This is why I hate the idea of banning models. It's the player that makes them work, not the model itself.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 22:01:13


Post by: H├╝ckleberry


I didn't know Razorwing flocks had such a high power level. ;D


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 22:08:08


Post by: luke1705


gungo wrote:

Where do you think people who play these events go to test out these lists?
Do you honestly think players on the north east are flying out to Boise to test out thier list for nova?
No they play at smaller events like connecticon or battle for salvation.
Your position is nieve at best. Events with 20-25 people are just as informative in large data segments as GTs that are 75+attendees.


It really depends on the event. There are some events that have been won by mono khorne daemons in 7th edition, and then there are RTT events where 5 out of the top 10 players at a GT might attend. Been to both of those events. Both are subsets of the player base that you might see at a larger event. They just finish in very different places at the end of day 2.

That being said, to any big event, the opinions of both of these player bases is just as important to a large event like the BAO, etc. Because if the top 15 players all love the event and have a great time, but the bottom 150 players are upset at having to play against Big Bird, they have a problem on their hands. And of course, the opposite is true as well (bottom 15 players love it but top 150 are sad). They play to the numbers, which is why a popular vote is often how the ITC settles these types of things among their attendees.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 22:30:10


Post by: gungo


True however that's why you look at the entire dataset not individual results. It also helps tournament players who put a lot of emphasis on itc rank attend a lot of events of all sizes but especially gt, majors and a lot of larger events that are 25+. You can't win a single gt to be the top ranked player in your army you generally need a lot of smaller but mid to large events.

Point being there is a reason why the dataset tends to be accurate with regards to win percent. And smaller event data is useful to see which armies and which units tend to be the strongest


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 23:19:33


Post by: Kriswall


No, you're right. Let's just ban everything you find scary regardless of whether or not it's an actual problem.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 23:33:17


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
No, you're right. Let's just ban everything you find scary regardless of whether or not it's an actual problem.
naw it's funnier watching you throw a temper tantrum online considering no one was even replying to you on the last replies and The entire conversation diverged into tournament data but apparently youre still sore.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/12 23:43:17


Post by: luke1705


One of you says "let's wait and see before we make a decision"

The other, "let them play!"

Odd way of disagreeing but you do you.

I do think it's necessary to put some sort of limit on the truly big stuff. There's no real argument for bringing a war hound titan IMO, as it's such a rock paper scissors matchup. On turn 1, you can pretty much tell if it can table your army or if it's going to auto lose on the other end. Either way, not a very interesting match.

At smaller events, I think TO's can more or less understand their clientele for the most part and make things work, but that's more difficult for an overall ITC ruling, for example.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 00:51:34


Post by: Breng77


I think Reese said it best, it isn't about balance it is about enjoyment. Tournament organizers are (and should be) more concerned with creating a fun experience for their customers than being a test bed for balance. It isn't that these units are unbeatable it is that they typically lead to bad games win or lose (see earlier example of the lord of skulls player losing on turn 1 every game, those aren't fun games for either player.). These units are the epitome of skew lists, either you can handle them and you crush them, ork you cannot and you get crushed.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 12:36:48


Post by: Kriswall


Breng77 wrote:
I think Reese said it best, it isn't about balance it is about enjoyment. Tournament organizers are (and should be) more concerned with creating a fun experience for their customers than being a test bed for balance. It isn't that these units are unbeatable it is that they typically lead to bad games win or lose (see earlier example of the lord of skulls player losing on turn 1 every game, those aren't fun games for either player.). These units are the epitome of skew lists, either you can handle them and you crush them, ork you cannot and you get crushed.


I'm actually fine with this. Just call a duck a duck. If you don't actually care about balance and only care about making sure that people enjoy themselves enough to show up for (and pay for) the next event, ban and restrict whatever you want. Just be honest and say you're doing it for the good of tournament attendance and not for balance. There is, I feel, a very reasonable belief that TOs and tournament groups make changes for balance purposes. Apologies for misunderstanding.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 13:26:57


Post by: MVBrandt


We do it more for enjoyment and fairness. Balance is an ethereal and ever shifting term.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 13:31:31


Post by: Breng77


I feel like that has not been true, for the bigger tournament really ever. The changes (outside of some Comp events) have pretty much always been for the sake of attendee enjoyment. There simply is never enough data to make real balance changes. People don't all run the same army, and so it is really difficult to say, well x army won x tournament and needs to be addressed/banned.

In fact I cannot remember a single change made by the ITC that was purely around balance. Balance requires re-writing large portions of the game.

Take things like the invisibility change, that wasn't made because every winning army was invis-star, that was because facing invis star was an NPE for opponents. Same with the 2+ re-roll save change, those armies were never unbeatable, they just sucked to play against. Same with 7th ed restrictions on LOW. They were never winning everything. They just produce poor games.

Especially when as a TO you need to make any changes before your event happens, so really you have no idea whether they are truly balanced.

Balance matters, but not as much as people having fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
MVBrandt wrote:
We do it more for enjoyment and fairness. Balance is an ethereal and ever shifting term.


exactly, if you ban/comp one thing, something else rises to take its place as the "unbalanced winning thing".


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 13:37:13


Post by: MVBrandt


One thing I also believe people miss completely is understanding Balance as something that is different by player.

"I've been beating ravenspam and guard taurox/arty/tempestus spam lists fielded by top tier players with berzerkers and bloat drones." That's something I can say, but it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything because how are average players fielding the same lists handling each other?

A lot of people will say things like "Knight spam isn't OP! Because you can do ABC XYZ." But it might still be OP if the vast majority of people playing the game really struggle with it. TOs tend to think more about players who end up ranked 20-256 than they do about those who can "handle it np" and end up ranked 1-19.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 13:44:19


Post by: Breng77


MVBrandt wrote:
One thing I also believe people miss completely is understanding Balance as something that is different by player.

"I've been beating ravenspam and guard taurox/arty/tempestus spam lists fielded by top tier players with berzerkers and bloat drones." That's something I can say, but it doesn't mean anything. It doesn't mean anything because how are average players fielding the same lists handling each other?

A lot of people will say things like "Knight spam isn't OP! Because you can do ABC XYZ." But it might still be OP if the vast majority of people playing the game really struggle with it. TOs tend to think more about players who end up ranked 20-256 than they do about those who can "handle it np" and end up ranked 1-19.


Right and this goes back to the enjoyment aspect of things. It also matters if your list can do ABC XYZ which some players you are ranked say 100-256, may not have prepared for, and not doing so not only leads to losing, but leads to doing so in a way that is not enjoyable.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 22:17:05


Post by: xera32


If banning pl31+ is for enjoyment, can we also ban brimstone/razorwing/drone/conscript spam? None of those are fun to play against either.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 22:26:33


Post by: DoggieDoo


I don't really play big tournaments (yet) but I'll leave my short experience here.

Was pretty new in 7th, brought a decent 1k Tyranids list to local GW store tournament (labeled as casual). (List was Living Artillery, Malanthrope, Flyrant).

Won 2 games w/partner and my last opponent's team was double Imperial Knight and some assassins. It was such a brickwall of unkillable non-interaction, my random partner conceded in the middle of the game due to boredom and pessimism.

Points wise I end up grabbing first in tournament, but that doesn't matter. I had started playing like 3 weeks ago, and this experience was eye-opening, that this will represent a non 0% of games I play. And for a game I play maybe 2-4 games a month, I certainly don't want to spend it against uninteractive unkillable hyper powered point-and-click titans.

I get that is maybe more of a 7th edition complaint, but man I would really not enjoy the same level of unkillable non-interaction in 8th.

You guys remember most of your games right? Like you can pretty much recall what happens? What sticks out stronger, the really fun close ones, or the ones you just get absolutely destroyed and feel bad?

Let that sink in before you make long term decisions.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/13 23:09:35


Post by: luke1705


xera32 wrote:
If banning pl31+ is for enjoyment, can we also ban brimstone/razorwing/drone/conscript spam? None of those are fun to play against either.



I don't disagree with you that those lists aren't fun to play against, but how do you ban those units? The ITC has never banned a unit for being too good, not even in the heyday of free for all scatbike spam (and even then they were only considering making it 1 heavy per 3 models).

The thing about high power level units is that they tend to be overwhelming and non-interactive. (Not that this isn't the case with the aforementioned lists) but they also categorically share something - a giant cost. How would you ban "OP" units? What would the cutoff be? Are Genestealers "too OP?" What about Taurox Primes? It's much tougher to draw such a line, and people who are just trying to have fun and bring normal lists that don't smash people's faces in would be hindered if you eliminated/limited the spam as well.

I've heard a lot of "don't allow more than 3 of a single unit type" but this is difficult and doesn't really mitigate conscript spam (and 87 brims with the changeling is still super annoying I promise)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
DoggieDoo wrote:


I get that is maybe more of a 7th edition complaint, but man I would really not enjoy the same level of unkillable non-interaction in 8th.



This is definitely a LOT less of an issue than it was in 7th (and props to both GW and the play testers towards that end) but that is the primary fear stemming from allowing these types of units into the tournament setting.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 00:11:00


Post by: djones520


Yeah, after looking at the lists for ATC, I'd say that it's just as bad, if not worse then 7th edition.

There are armies that have so many razor wing flocks, that they've got more then 400 wounds and nearly 1000 attacks.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 02:26:24


Post by: Fragile


gungo wrote:
You keep missing the point. I keep bringing up examples. But you keep missing it.
Let it play!!! We don't know unless we have 6+ months of tournament data is an awful way to balance the game.


That is exactly how to balance a game. You gather data from a huge set to see what is not balanced. IF GW is going to balance, these are the things they need to watch, not some knee jerk reaction like ITC did to Tau codex the day it dropped in 7th. They can balance point values of undercosted units or weapons with a large data set.

It has NEVER worked.


Because GW has never cared before. TOs cannot balance across the board.

And As you can easily see from tournament data already or the hundreds of battle reports... this edition is NOT balanced. Oh but it's a NEW unbalanced and broken edition doesn't really make a difference. People already know which units are the most powerful and broken. The idea is to fix those extremely broken units.


Yet you have no results that show PL 31+ are broken. Only your claim they are.

Either change the missions, ban the units, or change the rules for those units is the way to go. GW claims they will eventually do it themselves. We will have to wait and see how quickly this happens for now limiting the playing field by removing titan equivilant units is a good way to limit the issues considering it appears fw put very little thought into pricing most of those units with every single weapon option costing the same 0 points.

You can argue that a flat 32+ PL ban isn't quite fair to every unit however arguing that certain units are not broken is flat out wrong.


Again you have to show any results where those 32+ PL units were OP. Most of the current "spam" lists will eat Titans. How are they any more "balanced"?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 02:52:43


Post by: luke1705


TBH I think if titan lists go first in the ITC with maelstroms being assessed at the end of the GAME turn, they're going to have a really difficult time not auto losing.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 05:43:33


Post by: TheNewBlood


Considering that the BAO attendees voted not to allow Power Level 31+ units for the BAO, we will probably be seeing other tournaments follow that precedent.

Personally, I'm happy with this. I'd rather not get charged turn 1 by a Waptime-buffed Greater Brass Scorpion. And before you ask, no amount of Conscripts/Brimstone Horrors/Razorwings are gong to live long enough to kill that hate-fueled monster.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 06:32:37


Post by: xera32


 TheNewBlood wrote:
Considering that the BAO attendees voted not to allow Power Level 31+ units for the BAO, we will probably be seeing other tournaments follow that precedent.

Personally, I'm happy with this. I'd rather not get charged turn 1 by a Waptime-buffed Greater Brass Scorpion. And before you ask, no amount of Conscripts/Brimstone Horrors/Razorwings are gong to live long enough to kill that hate-fueled monster.


Good news then, scorpions can't be affected by friendly powers.

And as for enough attacks to kill a scorpion, 312 brimstone horrors should deal 20 wounds in 1 round of cc, if they all had their attacks. And that is without resorting to smite.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 06:35:47


Post by: AnomanderRake


Stompas and Baneblade-chassis units aren't actually that bad. It's when you start getting into the T9+/2+ armour zone (the Marine superheavy tanks, the real Titans) that things start to go south.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 10:18:10


Post by: gungo


Fragile wrote:
gungo wrote:
You keep missing the point. I keep bringing up examples. But you keep missing it.
Let it play!!! We don't know unless we have 6+ months of tournament data is an awful way to balance the game.


That is exactly how to balance a game. You gather data from a huge set to see what is not balanced. IF GW is going to balance, these are the things they need to watch, not some knee jerk reaction like ITC did to Tau codex the day it dropped in 7th. They can balance point values of undercosted units or weapons with a large data set.

It has NEVER worked.


Because GW has never cared before. TOs cannot balance across the board.

And As you can easily see from tournament data already or the hundreds of battle reports... this edition is NOT balanced. Oh but it's a NEW unbalanced and broken edition doesn't really make a difference. People already know which units are the most powerful and broken. The idea is to fix those extremely broken units.


Yet you have no results that show PL 31+ are broken. Only your claim they are.

Either change the missions, ban the units, or change the rules for those units is the way to go. GW claims they will eventually do it themselves. We will have to wait and see how quickly this happens for now limiting the playing field by removing titan equivilant units is a good way to limit the issues considering it appears fw put very little thought into pricing most of those units with every single weapon option costing the same 0 points.

You can argue that a flat 32+ PL ban isn't quite fair to every unit however arguing that certain units are not broken is flat out wrong.


Again you have to show any results where those 32+ PL units were OP. Most of the current "spam" lists will eat Titans. How are they any more "balanced"?

This is hilarious. Your knee jerk reaction to tau nerfs by the ITC are exactly what GW wanted the game to be played when they released thier FAQ. Everyone of the ITC changes were the CORRECT call. Drone spam nerfs.... yup exactly how to play it not allowing you to go in and out of reserves the same turn. Combined fire detachment nerf..... yup exactly how gw wanted you to play by not allowing every single character to buff your whole army.... not respawning piranas .......yup played correctly. Ghostkeel allowed to use multipe times...yup played correctly.. storm surge dying from anchors and vehicle rams... yup played correctly. Garagatuan creature (aka storm surge) toe in cover nerf..... again the right call. I'm sorry you were bad with rules interpretation but the ITC didn't nerf tau they played them correctly... if anything you completely proves my point the ITC made the correct call immediately instead of waiting 6+ months, but somehow your still sore you didn't get to play with broken misinterpreted rules for 6+ months. It is a joke that you would still be bitching a year later about ITC Nerfs to tau in 7th that were completely the right call. Crap like this and people like you are the reason why the ITC nerfs are completely validated; you don't care about playing the rules correctly you only care about playing with a broken army.

Would you like me to show you how to use the BCP app to see which armies and units are winning it's not exactly hard to see certain units that have a higher win %. Fw didn't even attempt to balance titans they literally put every single weapon option as the same zero point cost. The fw titan datasheets are a complete joke....


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Stompas and Baneblade-chassis units aren't actually that bad. It's when you start getting into the T9+/2+ armour zone (the Marine superheavy tanks, the real Titans) that things start to go south.
to be fair the stompa should be t9 or better with a mortal wound invul shield.... it is horribly overpriced. It has a handful of weak poor 5+ shooting and was completely hurt by the changes to blast weapons now being a lot harder to use with poor bs.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 11:05:48


Post by: Peregrine


gungo wrote:
Fw didn't even attempt to balance titans they literally put every single weapon option as the same zero point cost. The fw titan datasheets are a complete joke....


That's how it's been since the 4th edition GW Apocalypse book that introduced the "modern" titan rules, all weapons have always been the same price. Agree with or disagree with it if you like, but it's not a new thing.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 12:07:53


Post by: Breng77


gungo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Stompas and Baneblade-chassis units aren't actually that bad. It's when you start getting into the T9+/2+ armour zone (the Marine superheavy tanks, the real Titans) that things start to go south.
to be fair the stompa should be t9 or better with a mortal wound invul shield.... it is horribly overpriced. It has a handful of weak poor 5+ shooting and was completely hurt by the changes to blast weapons now being a lot harder to use with poor bs.


Really what the Stompa needs is more attacks. Offensively it is no better than a knight, and worse than a gorkanaut in close combat. It should really have like 6-8 attacks


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 13:34:29


Post by: gungo


 Peregrine wrote:
gungo wrote:
Fw didn't even attempt to balance titans they literally put every single weapon option as the same zero point cost. The fw titan datasheets are a complete joke....


That's how it's been since the 4th edition GW Apocalypse book that introduced the "modern" titan rules, all weapons have always been the same price. Agree with or disagree with it if you like, but it's not a new thing.
i understand that but 8th was supposed to be an attempt at balancing the game. For fw to say fek it we aren't even going to attempt to balance titans and everyone of thier 30 weapon options will all cost the same is a joke. No thought or attempt was put into any point cost at that level. It's just a flat 1500 or 4000 pts and the option to go flying rodent gak crazy if you want. At that point they might as well just say use power levels because we didn't even look at pricing this gak correctly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breng77 wrote:
gungo wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
Stompas and Baneblade-chassis units aren't actually that bad. It's when you start getting into the T9+/2+ armour zone (the Marine superheavy tanks, the real Titans) that things start to go south.
to be fair the stompa should be t9 or better with a mortal wound invul shield.... it is horribly overpriced. It has a handful of weak poor 5+ shooting and was completely hurt by the changes to blast weapons now being a lot harder to use with poor bs.


Really what the Stompa needs is more attacks. Offensively it is no better than a knight, and worse than a gorkanaut in close combat. It should really have like 6-8 attacks

Agree my point really was it's not pointed remotely correct as it's just an impotent imperial knight with a more wounds.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 13:41:01


Post by: Xenomancers


 AnomanderRake wrote:
Stompas and Baneblade-chassis units aren't actually that bad. It's when you start getting into the T9+/2+ armour zone (the Marine superheavy tanks, the real Titans) that things start to go south.

agree-I'd really not like to face twin link volcano cannons in any competitive game. Any well rounded lists is going to struglle against something that can out right kill your best 2 units with relative ease every turn.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 13:51:03


Post by: djones520


A Titan has never been about balance, period. Period.

It never will be. The Titan is solely designed to be unbalanced, forever, and always.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 14:07:06


Post by: gungo


 djones520 wrote:
A Titan has never been about balance, period. Period.

It never will be. The Titan is solely designed to be unbalanced, forever, and always.

then is shouldn't be allowed in competitions period. Period
So the argument about titans and equivilant gak really shouldn't have a problem not being included.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 20:35:07


Post by: oni


The answer is simple. The larger problem, the problem surrounding the answer and the one that practically impossible to get past; is one of emotion.

The answer... Ban Forge World units.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/14 21:55:48


Post by: Peregrine


 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.


That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/15 03:06:40


Post by: Uriels_Flame


Land Raider Terminus makes it by 1 point...


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/15 03:45:45


Post by: Arachnofiend


 oni wrote:
The answer is simple. The larger problem, the problem surrounding the answer and the one that practically impossible to get past; is one of emotion.

The answer... Ban Forge World units.


There are GW models that are in the same "too big to field" zone.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/16 02:52:31


Post by: Mulletdude


So which of the PL31+ units are considered to be problems?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/16 03:05:07


Post by: luke1705


 Mulletdude wrote:
So which of the PL31+ units are considered to be problems?


I think if I was ranking how likely I would be to ban these units, in order from most likely to ban to least likely to ban, it would go something like this:

1) Warhound Scout Titan
2) Hierophant
3) Revenant Titan
4) Stormbird Gunship
5) Thunderhawk Gunship
6) Castellum Stronghold (logistically difficult to place)
7) Tomb Citadel (logistically difficult to place)
8) Imperial Fortress Walls (logistically difficult to place)
9) Mastodon
10) Tau'nar Supremacy Armour
11) Vampire Raider
12) Vampire Hunter
13) Knight Porphyrion
14) Scorpion
15) Big Bird (aet'pouepoau'keres)
16) An'ggrath the Unbound
17) Falchion
18) Fellblade
19) Kustom Stompa
20) Stompa
21) Khorne Lord of Skulls
22) Greater Brass Scorpion of Khorne
23) Harridan
24) Skathach Wraithknight
25) Hellhammer


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 11:29:36


Post by: Breng77


 Peregrine wrote:
 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.


That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.


Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 12:48:37


Post by: Kriswall


Breng77 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.


That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.


Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.


We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 13:18:02


Post by: Breng77


 Kriswall wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.


That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.


Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.


We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.


Which is still more limited access than walking into a store with cash and buying the models, looking at the codex. In the past the rules have been scattered all over several books (this was a problem with GW in late 7th as well). So sorry but you are kidding yourself if you feel most people have the exact same access to FW models as they do to GW models and rules. I can also order GW models from sites like amazon, and have them at my house 2 days later, what is the shipping window for FW models? Sorry the access to such models simply isn't the same as it is to the standard line (barring maybe sisters, until they get a new model line) also those sister rules are in my Imperial 2 index, so I can look at them easily.

Can say 14 or 15 year olds, easily get pre-paid cards, link them to pay-pal accounts, and order things from FW? Many can easily take their allowance down to the GW store, or that amazon gift card from their birthday and by GW models.

Snark aside if I have to jump through hoops to buy forgeworld models that indicates that I don't have the same access to those models as I do to the vast majority of standard GW models. Believing otherwise is ignoring a lot of factors. Certainly to the point where comparing banning them in any way to banning everything but tactical marines.

Futher if you are an LGS and cannot sell FW models, banning them in no way ammounts to the same thing as banning the standard models that you can sell.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 14:18:28


Post by: oni


The IA FAQ's are proof enough that FW doesn't play test.

Their new FAQ's consist of 2-6 questions, preceded by 3 PAGES of corrections.

They don't even proof read their material let alone play test.

IMO... It's time; time to make the hard decision and take a firm stand... Remove FW from matched play. Leave it for Narrative and Open only.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 14:58:03


Post by: TheNewBlood


 oni wrote:
The IA FAQ's are proof enough that FW doesn't play test.

Their new FAQ's consist of 2-6 questions, preceded by 3 PAGES of corrections.

They don't even proof read their material let alone play test.

IMO... It's time; time to make the hard decision and take a firm stand... Remove FW from matched play. Leave it for Narrative and Open only.

So a FW Leman Russ alternate model is just as unbalanced as a Warhound Titan? Makes sense...

Tournaments have a vested interest in getting as many people to participate as possible. This means allowing as many models as possible with some exceptions for those models that were never intended to be used in 2000 point Matched Play. PL 31 is a good cutoff point, as it catches most all of the big offenders in terms of models unsuitable for balanced matched play.

As a side note, if you think that FAQ is embarrassing you clearly didn't remember GW's old FAQs.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:26:50


Post by: Kriswall


Breng77 wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
 oni wrote:
The answer... Ban Forge World units.


That is not a solution at all. You might as well say that the solution is to ban everything but naked tactical squads (with no chapter tactics or anything, of course). That would be balanced, but it would be about as reasonable as banning all FW units.


Sorry but "ban everything but naked tactical squads." is no where near as reasonable as banning all FW units. No matter how much you want to believe FW = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few if any FW units. Further we have some idea of the playtest process that the standard GW models went through for this edition, not the FW models, and based on the rules I would say the level of testing is not on the same level.

This isn't to say that all FW should be banned, just that your argument that doing so is the same as banning basically all standard GW models is silly.


We should probably also ban things like Sisters of Battle. No matter how much you want to believe GW Direct = GW, it simply isn't true. Most people have much easier access to standard GW models and rules, and are more familiar with them. I would argue most people own few, if any, Sister of Battle units. Etc. Etc.

Snark aside, anyone with an internet connection and cash can buy a prepaid Visa/Mastercard, tie it to a PayPal account and buy Forgeworld models online. In that sense, regardless of whether or not people choose to buy them, just about everyone has the same access. Your argument is invalid.


Which is still more limited access than walking into a store with cash and buying the models, looking at the codex. In the past the rules have been scattered all over several books (this was a problem with GW in late 7th as well). So sorry but you are kidding yourself if you feel most people have the exact same access to FW models as they do to GW models and rules. I can also order GW models from sites like amazon, and have them at my house 2 days later, what is the shipping window for FW models? Sorry the access to such models simply isn't the same as it is to the standard line (barring maybe sisters, until they get a new model line) also those sister rules are in my Imperial 2 index, so I can look at them easily.

Can say 14 or 15 year olds, easily get pre-paid cards, link them to pay-pal accounts, and order things from FW? Many can easily take their allowance down to the GW store, or that amazon gift card from their birthday and by GW models.

Snark aside if I have to jump through hoops to buy forgeworld models that indicates that I don't have the same access to those models as I do to the vast majority of standard GW models. Believing otherwise is ignoring a lot of factors. Certainly to the point where comparing banning them in any way to banning everything but tactical marines.

Futher if you are an LGS and cannot sell FW models, banning them in no way ammounts to the same thing as banning the standard models that you can sell.


I don't think you got my joke. Everyone has equal ACCESS to models. Games Workshop is more than happy to sell Forgeworld models to whomever has the funds. Just call them up or place an order on their website. Then sit back and wait. Literally anyone CAN do that. Even a little kid can save his/her pennies and eventually ask a parent/guardian to place the order for them. Will most little kids do this? Of course not. Is it reasonable to expect most little kids to do this? Of course not. But they CAN. It's sort of like the current US healthcare debate. There is a huge gap between making sure someone has ACCESS to healthcare and making sure they're realistically able to get healthcare. Having money makes a huge difference. Adults with good jobs tend to have more money than little kids, so it's far more common and reasonable to see adults with FW models than it is to see little kids, despite both having the exact same ACCESS to models. Access to something doesn't mean a whole lot if you lack the resources to realistically buy that something.

Once a player hits adulthood in his or her respective country, I'd expect that the barrier to entry caused by having to order something off a website is negligible. It's probably negligible for most pre-adult teens also. Negligible for anyone with disposable income, really. People who lack disposable income will obviously be less competitive in a game where more money => more army options => better chance of winning. I have yet to see anyone win a tournament using only the contents of a Dark Vengeance set. At a certain point, you acknowledge that the game has pay to win elements and that anyone not willing or able to pay isn't going to win as often.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:51:18


Post by: Audustum


Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:53:03


Post by: gungo


To be fair i'm all for forgeworld being included in tournaments up to a Limit (33+ PL). However FW models are NOT easily accessible in any way shape or form. I would say a good majority of FW models are recasters people play with. Every catalog from these multiple sources are completely packed with forgeworld models.

Even with that and fw and ebay and companies that make blatant knockoffs of gw products. I for the life of me can not find an appropriate model for the astra militarum sabre defense platform with searchlight. I can always try to kitbash with crappy kitbash skills a searchlight but its not even like there is close models to represent the large searchlight. Its a complete joke that you are claiming FW is easily accessible. And I'm trying to jump through every hoop I can find to even locate this valid 8th edition model.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:53:07


Post by: Kriswall


Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:54:40


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.
a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 15:58:47


Post by: Breng77


Sorry you are still wrong in your analogy to healthcare. The access isn't about if they can afford it, it is about ease of access. It is not that "people absolutely cannot get FW models." It is that it is much easier to get the regular GW models for just about everyone, than it is to get FW models. Your argument is akin to "you live in a small town and have access to a doctor, but you could drive 1000 miles to New York city and have access to a better doctor so you have equal access to both doctors." obviously you don't. So sure every person has equal access to FW models, they don't have access equal to those models that they do to GW models.

Also if you admit "pay to win" exists at all, adding an elite class of expensive "pay to win" options seems like a terrible idea. By that argument alone FW should be banned because it exacerbates an already existing problem. Think of your argument "At some point you need to admit pay to win exists." ok granted. It does not follow though that we should encourage it, in fact it follows that "if pay to win exists then, for the best competition we should limit its impact on the game."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.


Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 16:24:36


Post by: Audustum


Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.
a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.


I'd say wait for results to actually show it's a problem before jumping on it. Blizzard made this same mistake when Wings of Liberty first came out. They didn't wait for the meta to evolve (over the objections of major analysts like Day9) and just started patching 'problems' which ended up making worse problems or crippling 'fun' strategies that weren't actually unbalanced and drove players out of matchmaking.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 16:39:49


Post by: Breng77


Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 17:04:46


Post by: Audustum


Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 17:26:02


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
 Kriswall wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Why, exactly, would we even bother to use Power Levels, which are already inaccurate and all over the place, as the litmus test for this anyway? That seems nuts to me.

I'm also a fan of letting people take whatever unless/until it's proven by results to be broken.

For instance, Reese may want to make his tournament 'fun' but it's pretty clear from BatReps that he and I have very different opinions on what is 'fun' for a match. Now it's his tournament so if he wants his version to control that's fine, but the rule making should be acknowledged as the subjective process it is.


My thoughts exactly. Call a duck a duck. Reese isn't making changes for balance. He's making changes to drive tournament attendance. The units we're talking about banning aren't actually causing balance issues in actual tournaments.
a scout titan at 1500pts is COMPLETELY a balance issue.


And they're consistently winning actual tournaments? Attendance is actually suffering due to people auto-winning using Scout Titans?


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 17:47:56


Post by: gungo


Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 (or 144) str16 wounds with chances at d3 mortals wounds per wound of 6 or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Edit macro wpns double wounds vs titans and buildings


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 17:54:37


Post by: Audustum


gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 17:59:15


Post by: Breng77


Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.

Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.

I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:02:01


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 144 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


I don't actually care that much about this. I lost the argument in your mind and probably a few others. That's not surprising. This whole argument seems to be driven by your need to win an easy fight. I get why Reese wants to arbitrarily ban units that aren't actually causing problems in actual games of 40k. He wants more people to show up. Easier games draw in more players. I don't get why everyone else wants the bans. It sounds like you're literally saying "I need you to ban XYZ unit because it looks scary and I'm worried I might have to play a hard game of toy soldiers and that's not fair. I only want to play against units I know I can beat." It comes off as super whiny. Maybe it's because I'm a casual player. Tournament players can come off as total cry babies in a way that casual players never do.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:05:02


Post by: gungo


Audustum wrote:
gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.
I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:22:19


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
Audustum wrote:
gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.
I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.


Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:22:42


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 144 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


I don't actually care that much about this. I lost the argument in your mind and probably a few others. That's not surprising. This whole argument seems to be driven by your need to win an easy fight. I get why Reese wants to arbitrarily ban units that aren't actually causing problems in actual games of 40k. He wants more people to show up. Easier games draw in more players. I don't get why everyone else wants the bans. It sounds like you're literally saying "I need you to ban XYZ unit because it looks scary and I'm worried I might have to play a hard game of toy soldiers and that's not fair. I only want to play against units I know I can beat." It comes off as super whiny. Maybe it's because I'm a casual player. Tournament players can come off as total cry babies in a way that casual players never do.

The problem is you think tournaments are a causal matchup they are not. You can feel free to put whatever combo of units and as many detachments on a table with your friends. If you want to play open play with random models with your friends no one cares. If you want to play matched tournament games with 3 detachment limits with all armies under the same set of restrictions including limiting or banning units that are not balanced correctly so that these competitive events are as close to balanced and fun as possible that's a different type of play many many people enjoy and attend. The fact is nearly every grand tournament and several majors all include different play styles including narrative and friendly and apoc games where any model is allowed. The question really is why does matched tournament play with restrictions annoy you so much?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
Audustum wrote:
gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.
I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.


Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.
i play orks and guard I own a stompa and baneblade(1 variant). Two units on the banned list that I play in friendly games.....try again Sherlock Holmes!!! Also every Grand tournament and several majors have apoc and friendly games. No one is saying you can't ever play those models. Let's not make this personal because you are getting bitter. Sounds like only one person is being self entitled here and it ain't me.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:32:16


Post by: Kriswall


Lmao. I'm not bitter. Not even a little bit. I don't own any Titans and don't tend to go to tournaments. I can't handle the pervasive win at all costs while simultaneously being a cry baby attitude. For me, 40k is a casual game. Sounds like you can also enjoy it as a casual game.

It's interesting that you say that you use 'banned list' units in friendly games. I'm reading that as you considering a tournament setting to be an unfriendly setting. I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, you've been arguing to prioritize your fun over other people's fun all thread. That's certainly unfriendly in my book, so it makes sense that you'd consider tournament games to be inherently unfriendly. I guess I'm just a little more optimistic and think that most people want everyone to have fun (which is why people generally don't actually bring Scout Titans to events and why you don't, practically speaking, need to ban them).


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:38:27


Post by: Audustum


Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.


I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.


Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.


This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.


I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.


We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:43:00


Post by: Kriswall


Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.


I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.


Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.


This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.


I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.


We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.


It's also kind of hypocritical to argue that tournaments are not test beds for balance AND that we know super heavies are imbalanced due to prior tournament results. Pick one. Can't argue both.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:51:12


Post by: gungo


 Kriswall wrote:
Lmao. I'm not bitter. Not even a little bit. I don't own any Titans and don't tend to go to tournaments. I can't handle the pervasive win at all costs while simultaneously being a cry baby attitude. For me, 40k is a casual game. Sounds like you can also enjoy it as a casual game.

It's interesting that you say that you use 'banned list' units in friendly games. I'm reading that as you considering a tournament setting to be an unfriendly setting. I kinda feel sorry for you. Then again, you've been arguing to prioritize your fun over other people's fun all thread. That's certainly unfriendly in my book, so it makes sense that you'd consider tournament games to be inherently unfriendly. I guess I'm just a little more optimistic and think that most people want everyone to have fun (which is why people generally don't actually bring Scout Titans to events and why you don't, practically speaking, need to ban them).
I'm not the one on a forum arguing about a venue I don't attend and games I don't play just to argue. I don't play orks or guards the last 20yrs to win at all costs. However someone throwing down a scout titan isn't playing matched games they are doing it just to play with thier giant model. Apoc and titans has NEVER been about balanced games. The titans have always cleared out entire armies by themselves. If you ever played with a true apoc titan unit it's generally long games and the titan winning. Your first turn is just packing up entire trays of models that haven't done anything turn 1 because they are blown off the board. They are literally what should be used for power level narrative games because there is no good way to balance them for the game. I can and have played those types of games if I want however it doesn't take away from my enjoyment playing a different type of game that includes balanced competitive matches. This has nothing to do with my fun vs anyone's else fun. This is you being argumentative just to be argumentative troll online because you've already made it clear you have no claim to this discussion. Apoc events exist which completely destroys your complaints however you don't own any apoc units so you are just here to be a troll.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:52:20


Post by: Breng77


 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
Audustum wrote:
gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 str16 wounds with chances at mortals wounds or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.


Having just read all 3 pages today I don't think he lost at all. The discussion seems very much up in the air.
I'm not going to get into who won a debate prior however suffice to say his theory of play broken units for months because no one knows if anything is good yet has never worked in the past and being a new edition does nothing to change this. There is enough data available and enough common sense to see if titanic units are not balanced correctly or in the cases of actual titans literally they are not priced correctly at all because fw couldn't be bothered to price a titan turbo laser any more then a Mega bolter.


Just call a duck a duck, man. Your fun is more important than other people's fun. You don't like having to play against Titans. Titan owners don't like being told that they can't use the stuff they bought, built and painted. Just be honest and say that you care more about avoiding an edge case that will probably never actually come up in a real world scenario than making sure everyone can have fun. I'll point out that you're not saying "let's have a super heavies only event so that super heavy owners can have fun too". You're saying "super heavy owners are don't count when planning events and shouldn't be allowed to participate". It's all good. You're allowed to be selfish. This is a judgment free zone.


Actually some events are saying, lets have super heavies allowed event...so yeah. Your argument about people wanting easy wins is also wrong. I can easily beat many of the titans, the problem is those game still aren't fun. Titans are not fun to use in general outside of large apoc style games because they become a binary game, where if I can beat you and table you in a turn because you have all your eggs in the titan basket neither of us have any fun (unless you have a twisted sense of fun where getting tabled turn 2 is fun). I want close hotly contested games, which is why I don't want titans.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 18:59:41


Post by: Breng77


Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.


I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.


Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.


This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.


I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.


We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.


They aren't calling balance, you are. They are open and honest about why they are making the change. It is not a cop out to say that tournaments are not here to test the game for the purpose of some future ideal balance. They aren't, that is not why most people (any people?) are attending. FW also to my knowledge wasn't included in the playtest, so whether some TOs were testers is largely irrelevant. It is also irrelevant because I'm pretty sure the feedback of "hey GW, you know what really sucks in this game, super heavies in standard matched play, maybe you should make them 3000+ point games only for lords of war" wasn't going to take, because GW wants to sell those kits, which sold worse when they were APOC only.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 19:01:00


Post by: Breng77


 Kriswall wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Audustum wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Which he has said, so has basically ever other major TO. The units in question are balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games, not in the fact that they auto-win events.


But 'Balance' has nothing to do with enjoyment by definition. It's purely a question of fairness. There is no such thing as "balance issues insofar as leading to less enjoyable games". I'm not saying fun should be secondary, I'm just saying it's not the same thing. The ideal (on GW's end) is to make a game that is both balanced and fun.




They aren't necessarily linked, but balance does have something to do with enjoyment. Army builds can be unbalanced, which can lead to unenjoyable games because the lists are skew lists. This does not mean that these lists are OP from the sense of winning tournaments (as they have hard counters) but rather that they are a hard counter, and have hard counters leading to most games being decided on list rather than play. These games are not enjoyable. Take a 1500 point list with a Warhound titan. This list is not hard to beat if you have the means to do so. It is very hard to beat if you do not, so the game comes down to can opponent murder the titan, if yes the game is over turn 1. If not, the game is over turn 1. In neither case is the game fun.

So if you are looking at "fairness" and judging on, is this list winning tournaments. Then no it isn't so it is balanced. If your judging fairness, on do most games result in fair and competitive contests, then no it isn't balanced.


You're conflating two ideas I think.

Unbalanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable. It goes both ways (just like balanced games can be enjoyable or unenjoyable). Some people like playing last stand types of battles where there opponent gets every advantage and they just see how long they can last, for example. Other plays may not like getting so thoroughly beat down.

Something having a hard counter doesn't make it balanced. Balance is a huge, totality of the circumstances, perspective that has to look at not only whether counters exist but how accessible they are to all players and effective they are for their accessibility vs. the accessibility of the things being countered. You then need to assign a value to player skill and weigh that against the stats and accessibility.

Having games decided on list vs. play is really GW's call. No tournament is ever gonna reach that point without massive house ruling to the point 40k is almost unrecognizable from its RAW if GW wants the game to focus on list building. Fortunately, I don't think they do and we're being alarmist here.

In a 'balanced' game, equivalent points or points + player skill in a TAC list should beat a Warhound Titan. You don't have to kill the darn thing to win; you just have to out score it. So you can focus on durability or killing or maneuverability or some combination thereof. The tools we have now are capable of doing that I think.

What you're actually complaining about and where the conflation occurs is you don't like the meta a Warhound would introduce. TAC's can build to deal with them and still be TAC, but it'll be a different TAC than what we use now or used to use. If that's unfun for you and you want tournaments that don't allow that meta that's fine, but it's purely a subjective fun change. That's all.


For purposes of people attending tournaments, I would wager that a vast majority of them are not looking for situations where opponents have every advantage. Those games can be fun, if you are in that mindset, if you are in the mindset of equal competition then they tend not to be very enjoyable.


I wasn't saying tournaments are. I was using that to show how balance and fun aren't synonyms.


Player skill has little to do with whether these are fun to play against or not. Most people don't enjoy a game of running and hiding on objectives for 5+ turns and hoping to live so that you win. Again I never said these lists were unbeatable just that they lead to games that most people won't find enjoyable or rewarding. Whether you have to kill it to win largely depends on whether it can table you or not or keep you off of objectives or whatever.


This is conflation again. Skill doesn't necessarily matter for fun, you're right, but it DOES matter for balance. That's my point: these are different and you're making points based on subjective fun not objective balance, which is fine. Just call a spade a spade.


I disagree that TACs lists can deal with both titans and hordes effectively, this has proven true in the last 2 editions, where TAC lists were not really winning, lists that won were those that were skewed to the system. Sure that creates a meta, in which all lists in that meta are take all comers for that meta. But if the TAC list in the Warhound meta is, "take your own titan" then no I don't really want to play that game, no IME do most other people. As I said pages ago, tournaments (until GW decides to run them and front the money.) are not a test bed for balance in the game. They are an event players attend for their own enjoyment.


We have a new edition with completely new rules. We can't use past editions as a basis.

Anyway, 'tournaments are not test beds for balance' is a complete and total cop out. If tournaments are going to try and 'any' the game with house rules than they're entirely in this game. They want to just balance for fun and it's a different story. GW isn't designating them as testers it's just looking at aggregate data they create as a byproduct.

It's also a further cop out because these very same tournament organizers helped beta test 8th for GW in order to balance it based on their tournament experience. Their skin is in this game.

But like I said. They want to make house rules for fun it's fine. Just don't call it balance.


It's also kind of hypocritical to argue that tournaments are not test beds for balance AND that we know super heavies are imbalanced due to prior tournament results. Pick one. Can't argue both.


Who said that at all? I said that they tend to lead to lopsided games in either direction win or lose, not that they win tournaments. No hypocrisy, titans don't make for fun matched play games.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 19:23:38


Post by: Khadorstompy


I really find it hard to believe that thing like the warhound titan is hard to beat with a TAC list. Most the people I have talked with seem to think most of the bigger Super-heavies aren't really worth taking for their points.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 19:30:05


Post by: Kriswall


Khadorstompy wrote:
I really find it hard to believe that thing like the warhound titan is hard to beat with a TAC list. Most the people I have talked with seem to think most of the bigger Super-heavies aren't really worth taking for their points.


Yeah, that's pretty much what I've been seeing also. I think the call to preemptively ban them is just a knee jerk fear reaction based on prior editions. In 8th, the big guys obviously get worse as they take damage and units that could never have scratched a Titan in 7th can now would on a 6 in 8th. Literally every unit in the game can hurt a Titan.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 20:03:22


Post by: gungo


You guys are trolling hard or just playing ignorant..... warlord titans are 4000pts and are well out of any competitive matched play point limit. Its not even worth doing the numbers because its POINTLESS discussing warlord titans in a ban list when they aren't allowed BY DEFAULT...... There is NO preemptive ban list... warlord titans are banned regardless.

If you would have said the scout titan which is 1500 pts I could have at least given you the credit of a actual reply but the fact is I doubt either of you have ever seen anyone play with a titan period let alone a $2,000 warlord titan. But at this point you might as well go troll somewhere else any discussion with you two have gone into the toilet already.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 20:35:35


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
You guys are trolling hard or just playing ignorant..... warlord titans are 4000pts and are well out of any competitive matched play point limit. Its not even worth doing the numbers because its POINTLESS discussing warlord titans in a ban list when they aren't allowed BY DEFAULT...... There is NO preemptive ban list... warlord titans are banned regardless.

If you would have said the scout titan which is 1500 pts I could have at least given you the credit of a actual reply but the fact is I doubt either of you have ever seen anyone play with a titan period let alone a $2,000 warlord titan. But at this point you might as well go troll somewhere else any discussion with you two have gone into the toilet already.


You're the first one to mention Warlord Titans, my friend. Everyone else has been talking about Warhounds.

Also, to be clear, I've seen many games featuring Titans of various kinds. Then again, I've been involved with this hobby for many years and worked for GW for awhile, so maybe my experience isn't common.

I'm also not sure what you mean by a competitive matched play point limit. The rule book doesn't have one for matched play. It does have organized event guidelines for games of up to 3000 points, but there is no mention anywhere that 3000 is an upper limit for matched play. I assume this is a simple misunderstanding of the basic matched play army construction rules. No biggie.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 20:42:08


Post by: gungo


I said TITANS and specifically SCOUT TITANS (which are 1500 pts and inside the normal pt limits of most tournaments) not warlord titans. I even went into the specifics about the scout titans wpns not being costed correctly as FW gave both a turbo laser and a mega bolter the same zero cost.

Try again!!! I'll assume its just your basic misunderstanding of how to play 40k....
Also the title of this thread is really hard to read for you I can understand words are difficult.... "Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments"
Ill give you another +1 to your trolling stat....


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 20:51:33


Post by: Fragile


gungo wrote:
You guys are trolling hard or just playing ignorant..... warlord titans are 4000pts and are well out of any competitive matched play point limit. Its not even worth doing the numbers because its POINTLESS discussing warlord titans in a ban list when they aren't allowed BY DEFAULT...... There is NO preemptive ban list... warlord titans are banned regardless.


The sad part is the lack of your understanding of competitive play. A 4k model vs a 4k army stands almost zero chance.

If you would have said the scout titan which is 1500 pts I could have at least given you the credit of a actual reply but the fact is I doubt either of you have ever seen anyone play with a titan period let alone a $2,000 warlord titan.


We have in our larger tournaments. They have never been competitive in any larger point values.



Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 20:55:56


Post by: Kriswall


gungo wrote:
I said TITANS and specifically SCOUT TITANS (which are 1500 pts and inside the normal pt limits of most tournaments) not warlord titans. I even went into the specifics about the scout titans wpns not being costed correctly as FW gave both a turbo laser and a mega bolter the same zero cost.

Try again!!! I'll assume its just your basic misunderstanding of how to play 40k....
Also the title of this thread is really hard to read for you I can understand words are difficult.... "Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments"
Ill give you another +1 to your trolling stat....


You were literally the first person to bring up Warlord Titans...

"You guys are trolling hard or just playing ignorant..... warlord titans are 4000pts and are well out of any competitive matched play point limit. Its not even worth doing the numbers because its POINTLESS discussing warlord titans in a ban list when they aren't allowed BY DEFAULT...... There is NO preemptive ban list... warlord titans are banned regardless.

If you would have said the scout titan which is 1500 pts I could have at least given you the credit of a actual reply but the fact is I doubt either of you have ever seen anyone play with a titan period let alone a $2,000 warlord titan. But at this point you might as well go troll somewhere else any discussion with you two have gone into the toilet already."

Given that NOBODY was talking about Warlord Titans, I wasn't sure why you freaked out about them. You brought them up first. Everyone else was talking about Warhound Scout Titans.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 22:05:48


Post by: blaktoof


The ban on power level is to support MSU which certain organizations want to be on the top tables.


Currently there is a perceived alpha strike problem because most of the "tournament" armies are built around small units which are not very durable but can carry a lot of special/heavy weapons for their points and then flyers.

These armies would normally not be able to alpha strike as GW actually balanced the game more on release than for example the ITC 8th version has. The reason being is if you take a lot of units that are cheap due to being very fragile, but have 2-3 plasma or meltas you end up with a lot of units on to deploy and will not go first.

In ITC format the inherent balance there is broken allowing you to still possibly go first just with the opponent having +1 to go first, and then you still get to try and seize.

A warhound is powerful, but out of all the editions warhounds have existed (which is all of them) in 8th they are the weakest they have ever been. The flamestorm template is gone, many things wound them on a 5+ instead of not being able to hurt them at all.

The problem isn't power level 31+ units, the problem is ITC format not wanting them in as hard targets for the MSU spam some of the event organizers want to see and are themselves running. Which is why places like BOLS say there is an alpha strike problem, there is an ITC problem not an alpha strike problem.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/17 23:02:06


Post by: gungo


Except that's not true either since horde armies such as brimstone or conscript blobs or ork boys blobs or genestealer blobs or crow blobs are not msu.
Also the 15 or so units that are not terrain and are legal to field under 2000pts that are pl 33+ has absolutely no effect on what's good this edition. If you honestly think those units will change what's powerful in other lists you haven't played 40k long. The biggest threat to msu isn't superheavy is anti infantry spam like stormravens with thier 400 bolter shots. If anything those superheavies marginalized other tough units such as land raiders even more they are this edition. There are very few super heavies that can deal with multiple small units. Generally taking your main gun and shooting 20 powerful shots that do 2 wounds into 5 man units is a waste and the other titan weapons are even worse dealing with msu. Because dealing 2d6 damage to my ork boy is pretty pointless as well.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kriswall wrote:
gungo wrote:
I said TITANS and specifically SCOUT TITANS (which are 1500 pts and inside the normal pt limits of most tournaments) not warlord titans. I even went into the specifics about the scout titans wpns not being costed correctly as FW gave both a turbo laser and a mega bolter the same zero cost.

Try again!!! I'll assume its just your basic misunderstanding of how to play 40k....
Also the title of this thread is really hard to read for you I can understand words are difficult.... "Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments"
Ill give you another +1 to your trolling stat....


You were literally the first person to bring up Warlord Titans...

"You guys are trolling hard or just playing ignorant..... warlord titans are 4000pts and are well out of any competitive matched play point limit. Its not even worth doing the numbers because its POINTLESS discussing warlord titans in a ban list when they aren't allowed BY DEFAULT...... There is NO preemptive ban list... warlord titans are banned regardless.

If you would have said the scout titan which is 1500 pts I could have at least given you the credit of a actual reply but the fact is I doubt either of you have ever seen anyone play with a titan period let alone a $2,000 warlord titan. But at this point you might as well go troll somewhere else any discussion with you two have gone into the toilet already."

Given that NOBODY was talking about Warlord Titans, I wasn't sure why you freaked out about them. You brought them up first. Everyone else was talking about Warhound Scout Titans.
sorry thought you guys mentioned warlord not Warhound.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 06:45:18


Post by: Peregrine


gungo wrote:
A turbo laser that does a possible 72 (or 144) str16 wounds with chances at d3 mortals wounds per wound of 6 or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each


I don't know, depends on how many conscripts are on the table. That turbolaser isn't so impressive when it's massively overkilling cheap cannon fodder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 oni wrote:
The IA FAQ's are proof enough that FW doesn't play test.

Their new FAQ's consist of 2-6 questions, preceded by 3 PAGES of corrections.

They don't even proof read their material let alone play test.


IOW, exactly like the GW index books and their day one FAQs.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 12:01:55


Post by: MVBrandt


MSU armies are not ruling the day. ATC was the strong example of armies abusing the deploy first rule, 6 model armies getting perfect scores and literally killing every single opposing model they faced, etc. Also the warhound inflicts an average of 32 wounds per weapon to T7 vehicles. Or picks up a 10 man squad with each weapon. And can fire one twice. Also most weapons wound it on a 6. Only S6+ wounds it on a 5 or better.

I don't have a strong opinion in this discussion. Titans are extraordinarily unfun to play against if you didn't tool for them correctly. So is flyer spam. With the game being so new, codexes not out yet, etc, it's completely understandable some events would want to ease into some of the more extreme things possible. If you think the average attendee is going to be excited about facing 250 brims and a warhound in their first big event of the new edition, I don't know what to say.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 12:19:15


Post by: Matt.Kingsley


gungo wrote:
Again we went over this 2 pages back. You lost that argument then no need to rehash the point that something being broken doesn't require 6 months of testing to see how utterly overpowers it is. You are just going in circles now. Titans are not even remotely costed correctly every weapon has a zero point cost regardless of its A turbo laser that does a possible 72 (or 144) str16 wounds with chances at d3 mortals wounds per wound of 6 or 20 str6 hits that do 2 damage each.

Edit macro wpns double wounds vs titans and buildings


Each Turbo Laser also only has 2D3 shots, so that's a maximum of 48 dead models (assuming both roll 6 shots, then you only roll 6s to Wound and then roll 3s for the number of Mortal Wounds).
And of those 48 models, only 2 units can be targeted.

Wow, so scary. 48 dead models from 2 units a turn.
A typical 1500 pt army can do so much more.

Of course, anything it shoots is going to suffer greatly, but it's also 1500pts.


And that's maximum damage assuming you roll like an absolute god - something so unlikely to happen that it may as well be impossible.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 12:30:25


Post by: MVBrandt


The turbo laser is weak. The problem is the titan inferno gun. Warhounds inflict 8d6 autohits if they move before charging at s7 ap4 d4. Starting on turn 2 when they're in the middle of their armies, they inflict 12d6.

There is a reason they are 1500 points. Against most balanced armies, they'll kill the things that can hurt them on one.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 12:40:41


Post by: Peregrine


MVBrandt wrote:
The turbo laser is weak. The problem is the titan inferno gun. Warhounds inflict 8d6 autohits if they move before charging at s7 ap4 d4. Starting on turn 2 when they're in the middle of their armies, they inflict 12d6.


AP -3, not AP -4, and I'm not sure where you're getting the extra 4D6 from. Two inferno guns is 8D6 total, and the Warhound has no other weapons. And it's really not that impressive, the average of 4D6 auto-hits is 28 hits, compared to an average of 33 for a pair of the "weak" mega bolters at BS 2+, or 26.6 at BS 3+. Same AP -3, and the extra +1 strength on the flamer doesn't matter nearly as much in 8th as it did in previous editions. And the flamer has only 18" range, compared to 72" range for the mega bolter. I'm just not seeing why this is supposed to be so scary.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 13:29:22


Post by: Kriswall


 Peregrine wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
The turbo laser is weak. The problem is the titan inferno gun. Warhounds inflict 8d6 autohits if they move before charging at s7 ap4 d4. Starting on turn 2 when they're in the middle of their armies, they inflict 12d6.


AP -3, not AP -4, and I'm not sure where you're getting the extra 4D6 from. Two inferno guns is 8D6 total, and the Warhound has no other weapons. And it's really not that impressive, the average of 4D6 auto-hits is 28 hits, compared to an average of 33 for a pair of the "weak" mega bolters at BS 2+, or 26.6 at BS 3+. Same AP -3, and the extra +1 strength on the flamer doesn't matter nearly as much in 8th as it did in previous editions. And the flamer has only 18" range, compared to 72" range for the mega bolter. I'm just not seeing why this is supposed to be so scary.


Same here. It's nasty, but it's not 1500 points nasty. Also... to everyone who says it's just going to wipe out anything that can hurt it on turn 1... you know it needs line of sight to hit things, right? If your opponent has a Warhound and you deploy out in the open, you deserve whatever hellfire it rains down on you. Deploy out of line of sight and it'll have nothing particularly interesting to shoot at. I'm wondering if the people who say it's overpowered and can wipe a table if it gets first turn are playing with enough terrain.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 13:37:03


Post by: xera32


A friend played a warhound in a friendly tournament on the weekend. He got tabled by turn 3 each game. 3+ armour and 5+ (you won't keep it at 4 for long) void just doesn't cut it against things like heavy flamers and heavy bolters. The damage output of a warhound is laughable too. Compared to a ~800p falchion, which does well over double the damage with its twin volcano and 8 lascannons.



Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 13:59:40


Post by: Breng77


 Kriswall wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
MVBrandt wrote:
The turbo laser is weak. The problem is the titan inferno gun. Warhounds inflict 8d6 autohits if they move before charging at s7 ap4 d4. Starting on turn 2 when they're in the middle of their armies, they inflict 12d6.


AP -3, not AP -4, and I'm not sure where you're getting the extra 4D6 from. Two inferno guns is 8D6 total, and the Warhound has no other weapons. And it's really not that impressive, the average of 4D6 auto-hits is 28 hits, compared to an average of 33 for a pair of the "weak" mega bolters at BS 2+, or 26.6 at BS 3+. Same AP -3, and the extra +1 strength on the flamer doesn't matter nearly as much in 8th as it did in previous editions. And the flamer has only 18" range, compared to 72" range for the mega bolter. I'm just not seeing why this is supposed to be so scary.


Same here. It's nasty, but it's not 1500 points nasty. Also... to everyone who says it's just going to wipe out anything that can hurt it on turn 1... you know it needs line of sight to hit things, right? If your opponent has a Warhound and you deploy out in the open, you deserve whatever hellfire it rains down on you. Deploy out of line of sight and it'll have nothing particularly interesting to shoot at. I'm wondering if the people who say it's overpowered and can wipe a table if it gets first turn are playing with enough terrain.


So deploy your static shooting elements (most threats to the titan) out of LOS? So that when they move they get -1 to hit the Titan? I mean it is better than dying, but not exactly great when they then die the next turn.

The issue with the flamer is that it is largely unaffected by a diminished statline. Also each flamer does on average 23.3 wounds to any T7 vehicle, and 15 to any thing T8 or higher. It kills 7 models per turn with each one. So against light infantry it isn't super scary but against anything with multiple wounds it deletes 2 units (without assaulting) every turn.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 14:15:31


Post by: Peregrine


Breng77 wrote:
The issue with the flamer is that it is largely unaffected by a diminished statline.


Sure, but by the time you're diminishing its stat line to the point that the mega bolter is significantly worse than the flamer you're getting close to killing the titan entirely. The extra damage given by the mega bolter's vastly superior range will almost certainly offset the short period of low-BS shooting.

Also each flamer does on average 23.3 wounds to any T7 vehicle, and 15 to any thing T8 or higher.


Now compare that firepower to 750 points of melta guns/lascannons/etc. It's easy to look at the big scary numbers in isolation, but you're still talking about a 1500 point unit with limited ability to hurt hordes or MSU. It should do a lot of damage because that one model is almost your entire army.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 14:17:15


Post by: MVBrandt


I'm not sure hiding out of LOS of a model that big that can move 24" is all that effective.

I'll reiterate my main point - curtailing some of the more extreme stuff to deal with early on is a reasonable modus operandi by event organizers who see the full spectrum of players and outcomes. Keeping things like Warhound Scout Titans out of the picture in early events on an event-by-event basis isn't crazy talk just ruining the game, it's controlling crazy outliers while average players get settled in. Same could be said if people wanted to curtail flyer spam.

TOs aren't banning units left and right; they're looking out for the experience of the average player while the edition settles. It's not like the PL31 ban Reece did for BAO was an ITC ruling anyway.

The Mega Bolter isn't even in remotely the same league as the Inferno gun. The range difference is quite literally pointless.

Edit: Long and short, IMO it's not really a balance question. If an individual TO feels his/her particular attendees are likely not going to be well prepared to deal with something, it is within their purview to curtail it. Early on, I find that more acceptable than if the edition was fully settled in, all the codexes were out, etc.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 14:27:39


Post by: Peregrine


MVBrandt wrote:
The Mega Bolter isn't even in remotely the same league as the Inferno gun.


Except, as I just pointed out, it really is in the same league. The damage advantage against single-wound models is negligible at best, and even a disadvantage for the opening shots where the Warhound hasn't lost any wounds yet. The only difference between the two is that the inferno gun has 4 damage vs. 2 damage, while the mega bolter has 72" range instead of 18" range. And if you're talking about MSU armies or hordes of cannon fodder the inferno gun is the clear loser.

The range difference is quite literally pointless.


Uh, no. The Warhound can move 24" to get into range of one target, but it still has to pick a single point to shoot from. With 18" of range you need to make sure you pick a spot that is within range of both targets you want to shoot, avoid getting too close to enemy melta guns while trying to reach the key target behind them, etc. With 72" range you just go wherever you want and have the whole table in range no matter where you are. That's a significant advantage in flexibility in positioning.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/18 14:42:32


Post by: MVBrandt


Mathematically, given a Dawn of War Deployment, a Warhound's Titan Inferno Guns can hit all but the 15" left and right edges of an opponent's deployment zone on Turn 1. It can then hit anywhere else they were at on Turn 2, leaving nowhere "alone" by choosing to simply go after one or the other. And in so doing can completely ignore someone's ability to hide behind things for LOS safety. And wounds vehicles on a 4+ instead of a 5+. I'm not sure the point in the debate if you're suggesting a Vehicle with a 42" range on its auto-hitting weapons is somehow handicapped by not having a 96" range on a 6x4 table.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/07/21 16:25:10


Post by: Fragile


MVBrandt wrote:
There is a reason they are 1500 points. Against most balanced armies, they'll kill the things that can hurt them on one.


This can be said about many thing in the current spam meta. Robby G + Razor or Ravens, Raven spam, Flocks. No current balanced list will do well against spam type armies. Currently, its bring your spam and hope it beats someone else spam.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/10/16 16:41:20


Post by: paxmiles


MVBrandt wrote:
There is a reason they are 1500 points. Against most balanced armies, they'll kill the things that can hurt them on one.
A balanced army with all their AT piled into one or two units?

And Transports will negate this turn 1 destruction. As would units that don't deploy on the table. And it's not like the anhilated units cause break tests to nearby units, so you could start with most everything in range and just accept that you'll lose 2 units per turn until you defeat that titan (or die trying).

As an aside, that 39 power level Khorne Lord of Skulls took a pretty major points drop this edition. I can field one with minimum gear for 621pts, meaning I could field a super heavy detachment of 3 Lords of Skulls in a 2k game. I think the Lord of Skulls is probably weaker than a 23 power renegade knight, though that would depend on the Knight's loadout.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/10/16 17:15:51


Post by: Breng77


Deleted comment


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/10/16 20:48:41


Post by: cmspano


It kinda depends on what the unit is. We had a guy mess around with a warhound in a 1.5k semi-casual/semi-competitive tournament and it didn't do well. I seized the init with a command point, took it to 8 or so wounds turn 1, lost 4 models to it in his turn 1, and killed it turn 2.


Power Level 31+ Units in 2k Tournaments @ 2017/10/16 21:16:37


Post by: zedsdead


I can only speak from experience as the TO of the BFS Tournament last Columbus day weekend.

We ran the 31+ power level limit as well as a restriction of FW units per detatchement.

I spoke with a number of players and a vast majority of the players found the limits created a more enjoyable Tournament atmosphere. We had 70+ players. Not everyone agreed with that as well and said it didn't matter.

Only a couple of players had to make major changes to there list. Most felt it a welcomed change.

I am glad we did it however YMMV.

-ed